GOMEZ Henri wrote: > > I don't refuse anything, just expose that I'd rather like > an OSS Java installer. >
I've recently been pointedly reminded that I'm "not even a committer", but as the project guidelines encourage developers to comment and cast a nonbinding vote, I'll put on my flameproof suite and agree that I would prefer an OSS installer if at all possible. Using propriatary code has drawbacks like: - Unless the license is more liberal than I suspect, nobody but "official" Apache projects will be able to use the installer. Sometimes non-Apache projects do use Apache code, that's sort of half the advantage of being Open Source. Diluting that advantage would be a shame. - Contributing time and $$$ to a project that's being used as an advertisement for a potential competitor (that isn't contributing source code) is troubling. In this case not enough to make me (or probably anyone else) leave, but its annoying. If they want to participate, why don't they make plans to donate source code like everyone else? - If you aren't on the official list of supported platforms, you're hosed. With an OSS solution, a frustrated user of an obscure platform can make it work and then contribute the solution back to the community. - Although perhaps a verboten topic for discussion, there's the whole Open Source thing. Using a commercial installer if Open Source options are available is troubling from a philisophical standpoint. If you really buy into the advantage of Open Source, why dilute those advantages? If there's currently not an OSS solution available, then in the interest of expedience, I withdraw any objections. Which sounds sort of funny since it's nonbinding anyway, but what the heck. (Any personal email on this topic to /dev/null, keep it public please.) -- Christopher St. John [EMAIL PROTECTED] DistribuTopia http://www.distributopia.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
