on 6/6/01 6:02 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re: sourceforge; there are a number of differences. Has a community and a
> relationship or affinity with other Jakarta projects are key
> differentiators. Again, by the latter measure, Lucene is a slightly weak
> Jakarta subproject (IMHO) - the only direct linkage I am aware of is by a
> non-Apache project, namely Scarab. If this were a big concern to me, I
> would be insisting on a sandbox until the project grows up.
Part of the reason for the fact that there hasn't been a lot of Jakarta
project adoption is that the current license for Lucene is LGPL.
We are skirting that in Scarab because we have made it a 100% optional
dependency and we also do not have a real distribution of Scarab yet. It
could be done the same way in other Jakarta projects, but that hasn't been
the general theme for projects.
> But, all things considered, I don't see significant risk. That's why I
> gave my +1.
The only major risk I could see is that the developers may or may not like
living under Jakarta, but that is something we won't know until after it
happens and is a common risk regardless of whether or not it is a top level
project or not.
-jon
--
"Open source is not available to commercial companies."
-Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
<http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
