Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> write:
> Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> > I think you miss the issue here: there's certainly no equivalency
> > between "one-man-effort" and "open source".
>
> This last week has seen some intense license conflicts between very
> large open source projects: XFree86, Apache, and FSF/GNU have
> all made
> choices that have lead to (or could lead to) changes in various
> distributions. Changing licenses is not merely the province
> of "one man"
> operations.
Sure, but that's not the real issue (other than the fact I'd to see
everyone adopt a Apache friendly license)...
> > It seems that on one hand
> > you complain that you can't afford the time to provide free support
> > for everyone using Jisp, then on the other you want people
> to accept
> > code that has only you supporting it.
>
> One reason for Jisp 3.0, by the way, was to reduce my support
> load. The
> old version of Jisp was not "robust", to use a marketroid term.
Fair enough; reading between the lines, I guess you're partly saying
that prior versions of Jisp weren't robust enough to be readily adopted
by a community?
> > The solution to your (and the Cocoon
> > communities) dilemma is not to have a restrictive license
> (as I think
> > you agree), or to accept "one-man-efforts", but rather, to have a
> > community supporting the code. Once you have a community
> supporting
> > the code you will personally no longer be "pestered" to
> provide free
> > support. (OTOH, as one of the primary developers of the
> code base you
> > will be seen as having value for anyone willing to put up consultant
> > dollars....)
>
> Perhaps.
>
> > Now, exactly, how you go about building a community is another
> > question. But, it seems that perhaps some of the Cocoon project
> > members might be willing to help?
>
> I'm open to concrete suggestions.
Wish I could put my money where my mouth is on this issue (so to speak);
at this point I have to drop out of the discussion...
|