Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-flex-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-flex-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D04B310655 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 18:33:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 73169 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2014 18:33:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-flex-dev-archive@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 73135 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2014 18:33:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 73117 invoked by uid 99); 5 Dec 2014 18:33:02 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:33:02 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of omuppi1@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.170 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.170] (HELO mail-vc0-f170.google.com) (209.85.220.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:32:35 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hy4so585015vcb.15 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:32:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=8/wtNZBqALoRX3p+WcuTI1n1nrBrSR9vHVm32GCwguY=; b=XpRuH4pRkehBPc05vzCYqAkJssMHN3E4uRouq2CDH8NkEwCW8ccxBV6dXnh0SLAYuN vtoWQIoeyuR7eo+gc4v8eZNySVpy/I9/bPpRSpCWNwxBNTp8EV8y8SuUYHaT1s3FWWvg o38MFqqx78UmCgBGmaWkYQiWXFIwYNo4pvBwCwmEcieAWCdeM6Iibzl3S5uhFTvM7Zwe 3jhTsa9QG8iX7cfew1Z0kkx+xbUg6Q6/qT5XZY5x3Ao7Ih02Bz/QwWhFpt+aCXzp0WNm 5nHVax4rTQ8or/oG4KXNy+t+181CSQjdh0JLgxoYi2fGR08wjU5EQQ+m0AmMZtxI7znS siOw== X-Received: by 10.52.52.82 with SMTP id r18mr8570735vdo.49.1417804353682; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:32:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: omuppi1@gmail.com Received: by 10.31.49.203 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:32:03 -0800 (PST) From: OmPrakash Muppirala Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:32:03 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: udb9d68wdMGmqgzYupaFH_ci_RM Message-ID: Subject: Corporate influence on Apache Flex (or, the lack of) To: "dev@flex.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111d0ccdcc44e05097c4c60 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e0111d0ccdcc44e05097c4c60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Jesse, You are indeed raising very valid questions. I am moving this to a separate thread so we don't continue to pollute that other vote thread. The question you are raising is something that we have assumed to have been answered and put to rest. So, I will try to respond to it from your perspective who may not have been following this project closely. Responses inline: On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Jesse Nicholson wrote: > I'll stop emailing on this thread, my apologize to people for the unrelated > messages that have come through. > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Jesse Nicholson < > ascensionsystems@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > My intention wasn't to hurt anyone. As a grown up, I'm open to > > conversations where subject matter isn't all sunshine and lolipops > without > > taking it personally. :) I was just giving my first impressions, which I > > think were legitimate since 90% of the messages coming in so far was > > arguing over the release process and the release manager heralding the > end > > of the universe if we all carry on against his advice. > > > > Anyway yes I do have genuine concerns about corporate independence. Your > > profile says that you work for Adobe, right? I don't see how that in > itself > > doesn't wrap up "corporate independence" neatly and throw it out the > window > > and down the mountain side, with respect. > Almost every volunteer at Apache works for a corporate entity in their 'real' life. How else are the volunteers going to make money? You are jumping from being employed with company A to company A having corporate influence over an open source project. True, there are 'open source' entities that are completely controlled by corporations. Ex. Joyent - Node.js, Google - Chromium/AngularJS, etc., Apple - Webkit, etc. But Apache projects are all controlled by the Apache Software Foundation, which is an entity on its own. There is no evidence that any corporate entity has influence on Apache Flex. Yes, not even Adobe. > The only target (until a mature > > flex-js) is a closed source platform owned by your employer. > Again, this is not unique to Apache Flex. There are numerous (Apache and non-Apache) open source projects that depend on the Java(TM) runtime which is tightly controlled by Oracle Corporation. Same goes with projects like Node.js which depends on the V8 engine, again tightly controlled by Google. > But even then, > > the only complete toolset for authoring against this framework is owned > and > > marketed as a commercial product by your employer. > I think you are talking about Adobe Flash Builder. That is not the only complete toolset for developing Apache Flex apps. You have Jetbrains IntelliJ IDEA, Powerflasher FDT, FlashDevelop, Oracle Netbeans, etc. which support Apache Flex to varying degrees. > The website addresses > > this by kindly suggesting to command line everything. > There are several wiki pages that describe how to use Apache Flex various different IDEs. They are all summarized on our website, here [1] > Well, we all know > > that people who used flex before are stuck with Adobe Flex IDE dependent > > project files, so yeah. > Not sure what you mean. Please clarify? > Source code headers don't make copyright claims but > > rather express that the software is licensed to the apache software > > foundation with permission to extend that license (apache license) to end > > users. > Yes, because the software was originally developed by Adobe. Nothing we do today can change that fact. The fact that Adobe (graciously) gave away their software to us does not mean that they give up the right to use it to develop anything else in the future. The same would be true for you and me. If you develop a software and make it open source, you are not necessarily giving away your ownership of the software. You are only making it infinitely easy for others to take your work and use/improve it. > So yes sir, I have genuine, real questions about how on earth apache > > could possibly be running this project independent of adobe systems > > incorporated given everything I've mentioned above. > I hope the above answers should alleviate your concerns. If not, please ask more questions. Corporate independence is a very important aspect of Apache Flex (insert any other project here) and we want to make sure that everyone understands this. Thanks, Om P.S. I work for IBM and not Adobe :-) [1] http://flex.apache.org/doc-getstarted.html > > > Thanks. :) > > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > > bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Jesse Nicholson > >> wrote: > >> > ...many of the leads here seem to double as adobe > >> > employees... which makes me feel that this is still very heavily > >> controlled > >> > and owned by adobe for their own corporate interests.... > >> > >> I suppose you did not realize how that kind of statement is received > >> by people who spend lots of energy to run this foundation in a way > >> that keeps our projects independent from corporate influences, as well > >> as by people who take great care of contributing to these projects in > >> a way that implements this independence. > >> > >> As someone who's active on all sides of this, I am doubly hurt ;-) > >> > >> But of course if you have actual concerns about corporate > >> independence, feel free to report them to this PMC or to a trusted > >> Apache Foundation Member or Director. > >> > >> Anyway...welcome! And I'd recommend that you stay around for a bit > >> longer. IMO this project is currently in a crisis but there's positive > >> signs in the last few days that the atmosphere should get much better > >> soon! > >> > >> -Bertrand > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jesse Nicholson > > > > > > -- > Jesse Nicholson > --089e0111d0ccdcc44e05097c4c60--