Hi, Thanks for all the help!
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 11:34 -0500, Kevan Miller wrote: > Happy to help. I should note that I work for IBM. OK. Thank you. > Right. Apache Geronimo is a product of the Apache Software Foundation. > WAS Community Edition is a product of IBM. WAS Community Edition is a > redistribution of Apache Geronimo. There are some minor differences, > between the two. But from a functional perspective they can be considered the > same... Got it, I meant the functional perspective. I remembered that course required us to finish a small project on top of WAS CE or Geronimo, then I mixed them up all the time :P > Ah, English with our overloaded terms. :) By "commercial interests" I'm using > "commercial" with the following meaning: intended to make a profit. So, > by "commercial interests" I mean that there are companies (or people) who are > attempting to make money by their participation in / contributions to the > open > source project. Either via consulting/services, providing support, or other > means > (direct or indirect). Got it, thanks! > >> Organizations like the Apache Software Foundation > >> take steps to insulate their projects from these commercial interests. > > > > What does "insulate their projects from these commercial interests" > > refer to? I am very curious why to insulate, after all, it is quite > > common in nowadays' open source projects with commercial sponsorship or > > other kinds of involvement. Would those commercial interests lay burden > > on OSS projects which would prefer to more free rapid technical > > innovation? > > First, I'd refer you to some documentation about the ASF: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/ > http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html > > And perhaps most importantly: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > > The ASF is a meritocracy. You can't "buy" your way into a project. > You have to earn your way into the project, by contributing to the > project -- creating documentation, answering user questions, creating > bug fixes, creating new software features, etc. Once you've earned your > merit, you'll become a project committer and eventually a PMC member. > > The PMC of a project manages the project. PMC members are expected to > manage the project as "individuals", not as a representative of their > employer. This doesn't mean that a company doesn't have influence on a > project. > They certainly do. However, the PMC is expected to insure that the community > is > operating in an open manner, to help resolve any disputes that may arise > (e.g. > I want to implement feature 'Foo', but you want to implement feature 'Bar' > and > we can't reach agreement -- the PMC is expected to help mediate our > disagreement). > If the PMC fails to perform our job, the ASF Board can (and will) disband the > PMC > (and ultimately could stop development on the project all together). > > Not all open source software projects are structured this way. Some are more > open > than others. IMO, the ASF is as open as they come. I haven't looked at the > Contributor > License Agreement (CLA) for JBoss. Nor have I looked at the by-laws for how > their > community policies. However, I expect that any contributions you make to > jboss.org > become the property of RedHat. If you are an independent contributor to a > JBoss project > as an independent contributor, I would not expect that my ability to > influence the project > would be equal to a RedHat employee. > Super! This is sufficient for me to understand the distinction of Apache and JBoss. I've heard the successful meritocracy about Apache before, and now I know it better. Thank you very much! > > > >> The departure of employees following an acquisition is not unusual. > >> JBoss was "commercial". RedHat is "commercial". RedHat is also > >> "larger". I expect there were a number of reasons why JBoss employees > >> might have left: cultural, philosophical, and economic. > > > > Exactly, it should be a problem when combining open source development > > into a commercial environment, not existing in Geronimo, isn't it? > > Well, JBoss was a company. They developed JBoss and were attempting to > make a profit. It was a "commercial environment" prior to the acquisition. > I'm sure it was a different environment (e.g. smaller, more entrepreneurial, > more technical freedom, etc). However, both companies were attempting to > make money via the creation of JBoss. Exactly the point:) > > Would you mind if i ask some questions about the "sponsor > > participation"? Does that mean companies should give some money to ASF > > for Geronimo? Or they just needs to allocate their employees to > > contribute to Geronimo? > > The latter. Companies do donate money to the ASF (see > http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html). > These contributions are used by the ASF to run the foundation, maintain > infrastructure (hardware, > software, networking, power), legal, etc. However, this money is not used to > directly fund software > development on ASF projects. > Companies are able to ask their employees to participate in/ contribute to a > particular project. > OK, thanks. > > I appreciate your help very much. They are quite precious for me. > > Sorry to bother you again. > > No problem. Good luck with your research! Thanks a lot for so many help. And Best wishes to you all! -- Xiujuan Ma
