On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:02 AM, jeff murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://linuxfr.org/nodes/96358/comments/1407288
Ah, I thought the reason for Crossroads was our unacceptably restrictive trademark policy. :-) Since Sustrik used the occasion to try to trash our collective work, I'll respond here, and for the record. 0MQ will live or die on its merits, as Brian says, and it's primary merit has always been the community of smart engineers who are determined to use 0MQ in their work, and who ask nothing more than to be able to contribute on a fair and predictable basis, and who expect that public contracts be documented and respected. I've respect for Sustrik's work, but his way of working has caused serious and avoidable trauma to 0MQ in the past, and will IMO cripple any new project he works on. We tried the "Sustrik knows best and will explain in code and white-papers" approach for years in 0MQ. It was wasteful and painful. I'm not going to cite the specifics; everyone who's been here for more than a year or so knows what I mean. Having experienced the freedom of being able to contribute honestly and openly to the code my business depends on, there's no way in hell I'd give anyone, no matter how smart, a yes/no decision over my contributions. I'd certainly not contribute to a BSD project where my competitors can use my investment against me. Nano will, at best, become a native C implementation of the ZMTP/2.0 protocol and 0MQ APIs, like we have Java and C# native stacks, and at worst it will sink. To think that 0MQ has such problems that the world is ready to step onto an incompatible replacement is... a delusion. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
