On Monday, September 12, 2011 1:12 PM, "Jasper Horn" <[email protected]> wrote: > Upayavira wrote: > > Right, the source code is the project's most valuable possession. The > > ASF as a charitable organisation exists to produce software, therefore > > it must be in control of its main asset, the asset it exists to create! > > Talk about "control", "possessions" and "assets" doesn't sound much > like Open Source to me...
All software is owned (with the exception of public domain). Open source software makes strong use of copyright law, which is all about 'ownership'. Open source isn't about ownership, it is about licensing. Apache 'owns' the code (actually, owns the copyright on the collection, that is made up of individual parts which are owned by the respective authors), but then, in keeping with its non-profit mission, it makes that code available with a very liberal license to anyone who wants to use it. As a part of that, people have come to trust Apache software, and that needs some protecting - making sure that we keep to an approach that is worthy of that trust. So yes, Apache does protect its code. Apache does protect its trademarks. It is all Apache exists for. It protects its code and the methods used to create it so that it *can* make it available to the public, for no charge. > > There's scope to host code on git on Apache infrastructure, but that > > requires volunteers to assist with a deployment. > > What would need to be done? You can join the [email protected] mailing list and ask there. I'm not so sure about all the details. But bear in mind that the kind of install that Apache needs is more substantial than most. It needs a workflow that effectively tracks code's origins (SVN does this well, with git, as I understand it, there are ways to work around this). But, to be honest, I'm not sure what the current road blocks are other than volunteer time. Upayavira
