Thanks for the answer. So, if I understand it right, Wave in a Box potentially gets: 1) Ability to receive donations - I am not sure it is really important to the project. 2) Legal protection - I have no clue about possible risks here. The project is distributed under Apache 2.0 license, isn't it enough to protect it? 3) Copyright protection - Again no clue how important it is to the project. Seems to me not really important. 4)Hardware infrastructure - in fact the Apache infrastructure seems to be inferior to current Wiab setup. Moreover, if I understand it right, they insist that all communication and decision making should be done with the mail lists - which prevents us from hosting dog food server for the about needs. I think it is very severe limitations. Also svn is inferior to mercurial. In fact I think that point (4) is in fact disadvantage. 5)The Apache brand name is nice, however Wave is already a strong brand name in itself.
So to summarize, it seems like point (4) poses severe immediate limits on the project, while the benefits are not clear and not immediate. Also, I don't understand what's the hurry to join the Apache incubator right now. The wave team has a very demanding goal - to have a functional version working out out the box - as soon as possible, and it seems to me that working on joining Apache now, only distracts us from working toward reaching the main goal. On Dec 1, 6:58 pm, Michael MacFadden <[email protected]> wrote: > There are several benefits to the Apache Organization, I can list a > few here: > > 1) The Apache Software Foundation is an established non-profit 501(c) > (3) corporation. As such it can provide a legal entity that can > facilitate tax deductible financial contributions to a project. Right > now with the project simply hosted at Google Code, there would be no > real way for us to accept donations. > > 2) They protect the contributors from legal suits. Basically, if some > one uses wave and incurs some damages, they can sue apache and the > individual contributors / committers are legally shielded from that > suit. > > 3) Apache will protect its brand and enforce the license. Again if > some one doesn't play by the copyright rules governing the open source > project Apache can take legal action on the projects behalf. > > 4) Apache has hardware infrastructure like project web site hosting, > issue tracking, wikis, mailing lists, etc as well as a large mirrored > content distribution network. > > 5) The Apache Brand name is strong, we will benefit from being > associated with them. If we graduate to a Top Level Project, then it > says to the rest of the world that we are at a certain maturity. > > This is not an inclusive list, but some of the major benefits. > > As for the risks, you do give up some control over how the project is > governed. Apache runs projects as a meritocracy / democracy. There > is no hierarchy of project owners and various levels of committers. > This it self isn't bad or good, just pointing out that they have rules > that projects have to play by. I personally like how they do things, > but the point is that we have to bend to their will somewhat. Another > related risks is we are somewhat beholden to their infrastructure. So > for example they use Subversion for source control. Again we have to > just go with the flow. We MUST use the Apache license for the code, > and we can't ever "take the code back". Of course with the apache > license if we wanted to we could always fork the project and move it > somewhere else, but we can't ever revoke the license form apache. > > Basically, the idea here is that we are joining a community and by > doing so are agreeing to transform our project to fit their existing > model. Of course when we are an active member of that community we > will get a voice in how the larger community operates. > > As for the alternatives, we could just leave the project where it is > at google code, or move to something like source forge. The down side > here is we don't get the legal or organizational protections that > apache provides, nor do we get the brand name benefits. > > Michael > > On Dec 1, 2:59 am, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I was closely following the discussion regarding wave in a box product > > joining Apache. However, I couldn't see any real benefits to join > > besides having "Apache" before the "Wave". I guess the "pros and cons" > > discussions were held at the summit, but I couldn't access them. > > I am not against the move, it's just I am not sure I understand the > > consequences and the price. > > So > > 1. What are potential benefits? Are there things that Apache can > > provide that will make the work of wane in a box developers easier? > > 2. What are possible risks? I guess everything comes at price and > > joining Apache will impose certain restrictions. What are them? > > 3. Are there some alternatives? Maybe there are better ways to achieve > > the same goal. > > > Thanks -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
