Ali, I am noting that the logo attribution calls for citing a Google copyright. Is that still valid? How does Apache then relate to intellectual property ownership for Wave assets at this time? I understand the structure generally, but especially as assets are still being moved from Google servers to Apache servers, I am not sure exactly where this all stands. Who might be the best person to engage on these sorts of questions?
John On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you, Ali, for your thoughtful comments. I have some responses below > (which would look much better in Wave :-)) > > >> I would just like to remind people that Apache Wave has had working >> federation support in the code base since creation. (Nullifying some >> of the points in slides 3,4 and 16). >> >> The problem is not the lack of federation support in Apache Wave, >> rather the lack of a roll-out of its use between currently active Wave >> servers. (Which requires the server admins at both ends of a >> federation link to make configuration changes). >> Beyond reminding people of this feature, I am unsure how we can >> increase adoption of it. Suggestions welcome? >> > > My impression from speaking with some developers is that there is > definitely room for improvement in the existing federation code - I am not > sure if this is the source of failure to implement it in actuality, but > doubtless it contributes. Also, what's definitely not covered in the > existing code base is mobile-to-mobile-to-Web federation. People need their > waves to live on their mobile devices, not just on cloud Web servers. After > all, email provides local mobile offline capabilities. So if you are > considering the possibility of a mobile-first world, you really do need to > rethink existing Wave federation paradigms seriously., > >> >> > I'd like the Apache community to comment for now but I appreciate the >> > sentiment. >> >> Many of these points follow the vision that (I think) we have all held >> for Wave, yet on a practical note are stalled for the time when the >> codebase is cleanly separated between client and server. (Of which >> some work was started about a year ago during the 'mavenisation' of >> the codebase, but stalled). [This is probably our most important task >> beyond making a 'release']. >> > > Interesting point. Quite possibly well-separated server code could live > on, whilst ironing out how to make it as efficient as possible. With a > separated client, then the process of implementing it in JS-derived code > becomes much easier, and it becomes feasible to do a mobile client/server > stack supporting mobile-to-mobile and mobile-to-Web federation, possibly > via code using HTML5-based offline capabilites and emerging hardware > interface APIs. > > >> >> I don't think there are any major issues with making the slides >> public, as long as you ensure it is _not_ presented as a view >> sponsored or endorsed in any way by Apache or the Apache Wave project. >> My understanding is that you also need to add attribution for use of >> the logo. (See: http://www.waveprotocol.org/logo). >> IANAL though, so it would be best to wait for some of the others to >> comment here before making public. >> > > I will add the appropriate attribution. Beyond that, though, I do think > that there has to be a more serious consideration why Wave, with its > enormous potential, has not made notable commercial progress in four years. > It is not just an issue of federation, though that is one key portion, > without which email replacement is completely impractical. Certainly the > current design's architecture, which does not support message/blip level > data typing and multiple UIs accessing the same waves or effective use of > apps in offline and mobile modes, also contributes to the slow growth of an > apps ecosystem. But the largest factor may be that there is not an > organization dedicated to making Wave a commercial adoption success. If one > considers Linux, for example, there is a foundation arm, and then an arm > which promotes the use of Linux commercially. The Web has moved on, and > Wave has not moved substantially, in part because there are no strong > forces for keeping it up to date in ways that will encourage commercial > use. So I do think that there is an opportunity for ASF to consider how > that might be able to be realized for Wave. Its conversational data model > and potential for independent data ownership across multiple UIs and apps > should be right in the thick of everything that's happening in the cloud > and in the mobile Web. > > Thank you again, I look forward to continuing the conversation. > > Best, > > John Blossom > > >> >> Ali >> > >
