> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> > To address Ted's (legitimate) concern, I would prefer that
> we adopt a more
> > stringent (but one that can be administered based on
> reasonably objective
> > criteria) policy on Struts website content -- no
> advertisements of *any*
> > commercial resources related to Struts. Google does a far
> better job than we
> > could ever do in making such resources available, and this
> would avoid the need
> > for any judgement calls or unfair advantage to some
> commercial entities over
> > others. Announcements about nonprofit activities (user
> group meetings), freely
> > available presentations/demos/slides about Struts, or other
> open source
> > software that works with Struts, would still be reasonable
> candidates for
> > inclusion.
> >
> > Note that I'm suggesting this approach just for the website
> (and therefore the
> > snapshots that get included in the product by virtue of the
> way we create
> > struts-documentation.war). The current policy towards
> postings on the mailing
> > lists can remain the same -- the distinction is that it is
> clear who is
> > speaking
> > (presuming it's not an email virus forging the from address
> :-), and there is
> > no opportunity for mistakenly assuming endorsement.
> >
> > Implementing this policy would require a few more excisions
> to the Struts web
> > site (and save Ted some work in the long run, since he does
> most of the
> > "routine update" work), but not horrendously large amounts.
> The most visible
> > change would probably be the list of books on the front
> page and the associated
> > books.html page, since they are all commercial activities.
> >
> > I agree with Ted on the "consultants" and "powered" pages.
> >
> > Ted, would this deal with the criteria of your -1
>
> IMHO, such a proposal would not be in keeping with the
> business-friendly
> attitude of the Apache license. It seems inconsistent that we would
> encourage commercial entities to incorporate our products
> within their
> own but then shun mentioning them.
>
If we avoid mentioning commercial success stories then wouldn't you
loose the attention, and the awareness of other projects?
The more success stories of using Struts the more people are
attracted to look and evaluate the project.
I would say that Struts has been a wonderful and marvellous
success itself. It was the first MVC framework that I understood
and the design itself, I thought, was brillaint. It was like what
Mr. Steve Jobs (of Apple/NeXTStep) once said, "This is insanely great!".
That is when I looked at it in July 2001 for an old project that
was getting starting at my old work place [Deutsche Bank].
On the horizon, Struts now has some real competition like WebWork2
/ XWork by Atlassian. Right now the advantage of WW2 is the idea
of chain of responsibility which Craig has started to address
with his work.
Ok we are not loosing Dollars, Euros, or even Pounds, but what is
valuable is the mind share of developers. Loyalty and innovation
should go hand-in-hand together with a dash ethics and professionalism.
I dont think you should ostracise an individual because of his
apparently crazed verbosity. We should answer with a rebuttal or
refer the matter to a higher board. We should not respond with
avarice and nonsense, because we risk losing the developer base.
If we loose either one of them then the risk is that we loose those
trusted application users, and what good is framework without
loyal users?
> But, more importantly, in the end, I doubt that such a proposal would
> meet the thinly disguised goal of punishing a certain individual. For
> example if an individual were to make a PDF of a book they control
> freely available, then, under this policy, it may be the only book
> linked from the Struts resource page. Thus, giving this
> individual more
> exposure rather than less.
>
I think we to take time out to reflect just what is going on here.
The allegations are abouts copying source code from one project
to another. I have only two concerns about going on.
1) All the types of open source license need to be understood.
It appears it was not understood.
2) It should be between Apache Software Foundation and JBoss to
, those two parties sort out what has gone.
An interesting point in history is being made. Where once a software
developer was consider good, if he/she wrote smart and clever code,
now we are apparently drawing the line underneath the old maxim,
" a great developer is steals his/her code.".
It is first time I have noticed ever that two opensource are fighting
a mind-share war. Could it happen between Struts and WebWork, or
Barrucada.
Ted is quite right about the business friendliness of the Apache.
It is what gets the real senior management, the one who have
the power and infleunce, the decision makers, behind opensource and
to support a decision to use a framework or source code in a
project.
> Even without there being any change in the status quo, several of the
> items would have to be restored, since they refer to open source
> projects in which the individual participates.
>
> And, I believe we would also have to remove links to any
> material on the
> Sun or IBM websites, since these are commercial entities too,
> who, like
> the individual's corporation, also contribute to open source.
>
> In my experience, it's rarely beneficial to establish policies with
> ulterior motives. Especially for an Apache project like ours. Open
> source and intrigue make strange bedfellows. If we have an issue with
> mailing list postings, then that's the issue we should address.
> Temporary, and even permanent, subscriber bans from Apache
> lists are not
> unheard of.
>
As I said before, Vik does not express himself very well. Partly
because I think he is not a native English. But like someone who
opens his mouth before he thinks, is the form of Douglas Adam's
character is mostly harmless. I still think he opinioned
"I am ashamed of using Apache Struts because of the allegations"
in all his past ramblings.
It is definitely nothing to do with Struts, the JBoss and Gerinomo
issue. However, we must be careful about treating the open source
and licenses issues as ever.
Worst thing is to attack Vik is an individual is one thing.
To reprimand is another. And also if ASF can take action against a
particular individual, then one step next up the ladder is against
group of individual, and then next is an entire team, and then
possibly even a company.
> If we were to consider a filtering policy for our news and resource
> pages, then I would suggest we look to the Jakarta PMC or ASF
> Board for
> guidance as to whether such a thing is appropriate and, if so, how it
> would be implemented.
>
Ask the board for guidance. Also let the board handle the dispute
between JBoss and Geronimo.
> A consistent and foolproof alternative to filtering would be
> to remove
> the news and resource pages altogether. IMHO, removing these
> pages would
> not be of service to the Community, and I would vote against the move
> myself. But, I believe that would be a majority vote, and so
> my -1 would
> not be a veto.
>
> It's my feeling, that Google notwithstanding, a comprehensive
> directory
> of Struts resources is one of the many factors of our
> success. It's my
> feeling that it is appropriate for us to maintain these pages
> as part of
> the Apache Struts project. But, if they need to be moved, I
> can go back
> to maintaining them somewhere else.
>
> It just seems sad to me that a vendetta against a sole
> individual means
> that the entire Community has to suffer.
>
> -Ted.
--
Peter Pilgrim,
Struts/J2EE Consultant, RBoS FM, Risk IT
Tel: +44 (0)207-375-4923
***********************************************************************************
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above.
As this e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information,
if you are not the named addressee, you are not authorised to
retain, read, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it.
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc is registered in Scotland No 90312
Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB
Regulated by the Financial Services Authority
Visit our website at http://www.rbs.co.uk/CBFM/
***********************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
