On 6/6/2011 1:06 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/5/11 10:16 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> Wow. Did it occur to you that the original project, Apache httpd, >>> was commercially exploited by vendors *even prior to the creation >>> of the Apache Software Foundation*? >> >> There is a difference between commercial entities using code vs >> manipulating communities. Clearly we disagree on this and what the >> ASF is for. Fine. I hope there is room for both of our views. > > I'm totally in agreement with Phil. There is a BIG difference in the two > positions and I for one would not support ASF being exploited. ASF products > being used for commercial success is absolutely superb.
Let's clarify exploitation. This is a code dump (exploitative) with another group (IBM folks + OOo folks) to accept responsibility for it (counter-exploitative). No exceptions are made to our process, changes to the language of the the grant letter were not accepted. The proposers submit their idea to the incubator, just as all others must submit their ideas for the incubator to consider, vote upon, mentor and guide, and hopefully, graduate to a TLP. No exceptions. The code is not available to developers under a permissive license, this offer is to incubate the code under a permissive license. It has willing committers, and mentors. So what I'm asking is, what is the exploitation? That is a charged allegation. I initially thought the same until I read all of the background on the history and current composition of OOo consumers. >>> ASF members wish to devote considerable time and energy to this >>> project, so exactly who the hell are you to decide what they should >>> and shouldn't devote that time and energy to? > > Um Bill you really should cool it a bit .. why are you getting so hot about > it? Phil too is a long standing member of the ASF and has every right to > comment on this! Yes, if he will clarify what is exploitative, otherwise the post is FUD. To be clear; OOo was not part of LO, although it was consumed by LO. OOo has players which use the code differently and under more flexible license than LO has. If Oracle incorporated OOo as a 501(c) and granted OOo an AL to all of the code and divested itself of the OOo foundation, would that have been exploitative? If not, then where is the exploitation of the ASF facing the same prospects as an independent OOo organization? >> I am just a volunteer who has seen the ASF struggle with >> growth-related issues for several years now. I think it is a fair >> question to ask whether we should think about different / more >> selective criteria for entrance to the incubator. Sorry if asking >> that question offends you. > > +1. Those (esp. members) who find that question offensive need to take a > cold shower. Or rather, the incubator needs to evaluate current proposals on its current methodology, and (in a quiet time between proposals) generate more specific criteria for incubation, independent of any particular proposal. I just find it rude to change the rules of the game during the match. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
