cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From burtonator <>
Subject Re: Infozone
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2000 23:27:05 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> burtonator wrote:
> >
> > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > <sniop>
> > > > I certainly don't think this applies to the Java/Server-side world.
> > >
> > > I disagree. It's nothing about java or server side. If I were only
> > >, I would be afraid of using BSD-style licenses
> > > because of small companies stealing my stuff. BSD works very well when
> > > you have a name. "Berkeley" for example... or "Apache".
> > <snip>
> >
> > Yes.  The point in this case is that we have the ASF.  The ASF makes the
> > APL possible in a Java/Server-side world.  Certainly if you are not
> > under the ASF you should think out the situation.
> >
> > The reason I think this applies to the Java/Server-side world is that if
> > you have a decent project, you should bring it under the ASF.  In the
> > future most projects will be like this.  There are certain exceptions of
> > course.  I would like to see Lucene and EJBoss under the ASF.
> What's "lucene"?

google -> lucene ->
> About EJBoss: they came to us offering to donate their code. We said: we
> have to think about it. They replied: fine, if you don't want us, we'll
> go on anyway.

yeah... I know the history.  At the BOF I asked all three teams if they
should merge and they said they will think about it.
> So Jon hosted them on to watch them over time. I've
> been told by several different people that EJBoss community is rather
> messy and hard to deal with. Please, no offense intended, these are
> things I'm just quoting, not my personal thoughts.

The EJBoss team (my impression at least) seemed to be very opinionated
about the GPL.  This is fine and I think that the GPL is great but I
believe that an open dialog might improve the situation.
> My only impression (when they approached java.apache for donation) was
> not that good: the behaved like they "deserved" it.

> About Kevin's idea of using the ASF as a rocket launching platform for
> every java project on the server side... well, that would suck. It would
> waste our name and tear the community in pieces.

... that was not my idea!  What I meant/said was that if it is a
significant project it should be under  Obviously we should
host every single project under the SUN but when something wants to get
bigger it can come under the ASF.  This is exactly what I did with
Jetspeed.  It was GPL and I changed it. :)
> This is why GNU has a strong license with no formal process and the ASF
> has strong formal processes with a light license. To keep the name
> valuable.
> Apache doesn't incubate projects anymore: a project must be already
> started to be hosted and must already prove its value by itself. (not
> being perfect or even finished, but valuable and respected)
> This is why we were afraid of EJBoss: the EJB open source community is
> very fragmented and very unfriendly to each other... why is that? Do we
> really want to stick our heads into that yet?

Yes.  But there are other OSS EJB projects, Jonas and now OpenEJB which
was funded by Exoffice.  OpenEJB is new on the scene because their
development was closed for a while (ug).  This is something we should
think about.
> I myself helped to create or port _many_ projects under the Apache flag
> (JMeter, Avalon, JAMES, Cocoon, Tomcat, Ant, FOP) and many more will
> come in the future.
> But if you look carefully from 30000 feet, there is a scheme: you can
> see sort of Natzca pictures down below that cover the field of server
> side technologies. But this is not a random collection and never will be
> until I'm around.

Yes... but you have to find the code first :)

Kevin A Burton (e-mail:, UIN: 73488596, ZKey:
Message to SUN:  "Please Open Source Java!"
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
    - Sun Tzu, 300 B.C.

View raw message