Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> Actually we had a similar discussion some time ago, and also related
> to DataViews. Forking and relicensing is an easy option:
>
> http://objectstyle.org/cayenne/lists/cayenne-devel/2007/04/0035.html
>
> Whoever wants to work on a fork, I suggest you contact Adrian
> Wiesmann (who is likely reading this list). I think he already did a
> fork and placed it on SourceForge (?)
>
Well, as I mentioned, I'm not interested in "forking" but "moving" :).
I saw Adrian's work - it's not a standalone SF project, but part of some
other one, and as you
say - it's a *fork* :).
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> I disagree that Apache license as such is unfriendly to GUI projects
> (at least I haven't heard any reasonable argument to back that idea),
> but the fact that most existing libraries converged around (L)GPL
> could definitely play its role as a high barrier to entry. Although
> there are notable exceptions - JGoodies uses BSD license.
>
Yes, sure - the exception that confirms the rule :).
The thumb rule I heard on many JUGs(and forums) is that "if you want a tool
or GUI use LGLP, if you want
a general library than use BSD or Apache". I got no explanation why is that
so (beyond "lawyers found this as the best combination"), but it seems that
developers apply it :).
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> Finally I have no idea why people are so afraid to contribute to
> Apache. There are no barriers, except for the ones that any
> established project would have, namely that the people involved in
> the project value their reputation built over the years, and
> therefore require new contributors to go through the karma building
> process, before giving them write access. I think that's very
> reasonable.
>
Well I can give you a few reasons, but I suppose "true Apache believers"
will dismiss them and will consider "flame" :). This is not my intention,
but to give you another point of view - that of *your users*.
#1 - most people do open source work in their free time, and this for fun
and only as long as it makes fun.
(Well there might be exceptions - maybe on Apache.org there are more
"employees" doing open source work in their "work time" than somewhere
else).
#2 - submitting patches to an issue tracking system is no fun.
There's no direct feedback, there's no "instant gratification", and for sure
it does not compare with a simply making a quick check in and getting
feedback for your changes.
#2.1 - in many Apache projects, issues (with patches but with simple code
snippets too) take months to get into the code - if they ever get. A simple
browse of the Apache JIRA shows this state: there are even a few projects
where this takes years :) - Velocity, JAMES, Commons VFS - just to mention a
few (and your users know them even if they don't express their frustration
with that state).
#3 - getting commit rights is waaaay too complicated on Apache.org - on
sourceforge it takes only one click :). If it's not OK what that developer
does, the rights can be revoked anytime, and the code rollbacked - nobody
gets upset and nobody is loosing time - the time frame where the contributor
is in "fun state" is kept :).
#4 - on SF unlike Apache.org most people spend no time on licensing
discussions (nor really do they care) or voting with the most strange voting
ever invented: "veto" for everybody :) :) :). (on Apache JAMES this veto
this leads to constant blocking in the last 3 years, and on other projects
to always choose the "least common denominator", or developers being
Ueber-cautious - this simply kills creativity, and 100% kills fun :) ).
I hope, you don't take this as a flame but as an insight in the perspective
of your users trying to help.
Thank you,
Demetrios.
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DataViews---Proposal---move-to-sourceforge%21-tf4743504.html#a13572442 Sent from the Cayenne - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Nov 04 2007 - 07:34:17 EST