Nice to have you back and engaged, David. My apologies if I didn't express that earlier.
Were you at ACNA15 also? Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Quoting: > > I suspect that the world is heading to git. I am just starting to get > acquanted with it and beginning to feel like a bit of a dinosaur using SVN > for our projects internally. > > > That should be in another thread. Nevertheless, such can be said regarding > a lot of (also unrelated) subjects/things which are still happily used by a > great number. See the 'dinosaur' in this: > http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150404_WBC737_0.png > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Ron Wheeler < > rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: > >> On 20/04/2015 5:07 PM, David E. Jones wrote: >> >>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 12:48, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 20/04/2015 3:11 PM, David E. Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 11:35, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Would Moqui become a sub-project of OFBiz with distinct deliverable >>>>>> with an Apache license? >>>>>> Or is that too much community? >>>>>> >>>>> IMO they are better as distinct projects. There is a chance Moqui >>>>> Framework could become a separate ASF project, though the name "Apache >>>>> Moqui" is oddly contradictory (I chose the name based on Moqui Marbles, >>>>> but >>>>> it is also another name for the Hopi tribe). More seriously, these days I >>>>> like the distributed and moderated approaches used in the Linux kernel >>>>> more >>>>> than the community approach mandated by the ASF. >>>>> >>>> What would be the problem of it being part of OFBiz in the same way >>>> that FOP and Batik are part of the XLMGraphics project or Jetspeed is part >>>> of the Portals project. >>>> A lot less work than a TLP but still benefiting from Apache. >>>> Would not have to call of Apache Moqui. It would just be Moqui , part >>>> of Apache OfBiz >>>> >>> XML Graphics and Portals are both umbrella projects, meant to have >>> sub-projects, and OFBiz is not. OFBiz could be restructured that way, and >>> perhaps even have sub-projects without that restructuring sort of like the >>> Jackrabbit Oak project, but still not sure if it makes sense. On that note: >>> if a Moqui-based (or Moqui and Mantle based) version of OFBiz were built it >>> might make sense as a sub-project just like Oak is of Jackrabbit. On a far >>> side note: Oak looks great but I wish it ran on something other than >>> MongoDB so it could be embedded for dev and smaller deployments! >>> >>> The process of becoming a TLP isn't that much of a concern to me. It >>> takes time, but is worth it to establish a firm foundation for the project >>> going forward. >>> >>> The main issues that concern me are the various and changing policies of >>> the ASF. I have a hard time seeing the point of trademarks for open source >>> projects, for example. >>> >> Not sure if this is key to the current discussion but I would not mind >> hearing details of your concerns since we have put a bit of an effort into >> that area recently. >> >>> The community model is another concern, I don't like the structure as >>> much as certain alternatives in the open source world (even if I used to >>> think it was the best approach, or at least something similar to the ASF >>> approach). It may be possible to manage a more distributed community and >>> code base with various fork repositories and feature/issue branches in the >>> style of git (ie actually using git within the ASF). >>> >> I suspect that the world is heading to git. I am just starting to get >> acquanted with it and beginning to feel like a bit of a dinosaur using SVN >> for our projects internally. >> >>> >>> During incubation the biggest community risk is _forcing_ a certain >>> number of committers and PMC members. I don't want to scrape to include >>> people in these roles as they are vital to the future of the project. I >>> would rather let people come along, express interest, and thoroughly prove >>> merit before they take on such a role. >>> >> One of the advantages of joning an existing project is that you are not >> affected by the restriction on users and PMC members. >> >>> >>> As for community, regardless of the structure the various Moqui >>>>> projects are now in a good place for a bigger community and it is needed >>>>> for more significant growth in the projects. There are parallels to OFBiz >>>>> which was mostly two people until around 2004-2005 when the project >>>>> exploded (we had other contributors before then, but most not so involved >>>>> or enduring). Jacopo was the first really strong contributor in 2003, and >>>>> remains to this day! I'm still looking for a "Jacopo" for Moqui... heck, >>>>> maybe it'll be Jacopo. ;) (No pressure Jacopo: I know you're a busy man >>>>> and >>>>> doing fantastic and important work elsewhere including OFBiz, Hotwax, and >>>>> other projects you contribute to.) >>>>> >>>>> As for licensing: the public domain "license" is even less restrictive >>>>> than the Apache 2 license. The one thing that bothers me about the >>>>> licensing approach, that I'll freely admit but that I'm not sure how to >>>>> handle better, is the explicit patent grant that is in the Apache 2 >>>>> license >>>>> (which made it incompatible with GPL2, though GPL3 has it too so it is >>>>> "compatible", ie no additional restrictions). In theory this shouldn't be >>>>> a >>>>> legal issue because releasing it as public domain means giving up most IP >>>>> rights, and there is the prior art aspect of it too, but patent courts >>>>> these days (at least in the USA) are awful and they don't seem to care >>>>> about prior art unless you pay a few million USD to lawyers along with >>>>> substantial court fees to get that recognized. In theory it shouldn't be >>>>> an >>>>> issue, not sure if it ever has been even for Apache 2 licensed code, but >>>>> it >>>>> could be and in theory the terms in the Apache 2 license make it cheaper >>>>> to >>>>> defend against patent claims (again in theory... chances are there would >>>>> still be significant, possibly bankrupting, legal fees to defend against >>>>> such). >>>>> >>>> Being a part of an Apache project makes it harder to try to steal the >>>> IP or claim ownership. >>>> >>> Because of the ASF legal fund? >>> >> and the reputation of Apache, the major sponsors and the number of >> companies that would have big problems if the Apache license came under >> attack. >> Many of the big patent trolls and patent holders use Apache products in >> their own products and operations. They would have a hard time explaining >> to shareholders the costs and liabilities that they would suffer if Apache >> licenses could not be trusted. >> >> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Ron Wheeler >> President >> Artifact Software Inc >> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com >> skype: ronaldmwheeler >> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >> >> >> >
