geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From maxj07 <max...@sei.pku.edu.cn>
Subject Re: How contributors participate in this community?
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:05:28 GMT
Hi,

  Thanks for all the help!

On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 11:34 -0500, Kevan Miller wrote:

> Happy to help. I should note that I work for IBM. 

OK. Thank you. 

> Right. Apache Geronimo is a product of the Apache Software Foundation. 
> WAS Community Edition is a product of IBM. WAS Community Edition is a 
> redistribution of Apache Geronimo. There are some minor differences, 
> between the two. But from a functional perspective they can be considered the same...

Got it, I meant the functional perspective. I remembered that course
required us to finish a small project on top of WAS CE or Geronimo, then
I mixed them up all the time :P

> Ah, English with our overloaded terms. :) By "commercial interests" I'm using 
> "commercial" with the following meaning: intended to make a profit. So, 
> by "commercial interests" I mean that there are companies (or people) who are 
> attempting to make money by their participation in / contributions to the open 
> source project. Either via consulting/services, providing support, or other means 
> (direct or indirect).

Got it, thanks!

> >> Organizations like the Apache Software Foundation
> >> take steps to insulate their projects from these commercial interests.
> > 
> > What does "insulate their projects from these commercial interests"
> > refer to? I am very curious why to insulate, after all, it is quite
> > common in nowadays' open source projects with commercial sponsorship or
> > other kinds of involvement. Would those commercial interests lay burden
> > on OSS projects which would prefer to more free rapid technical
> > innovation? 
> 
> First, I'd refer you to some documentation about the ASF:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html
> 
> And perhaps most importantly:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> 
> The ASF is a meritocracy. You can't "buy" your way into a project. 
> You have to earn your way into the project, by contributing to the 
> project -- creating documentation, answering user questions, creating 
> bug fixes, creating new software features, etc. Once you've earned your 
> merit, you'll become a project committer and eventually a PMC member.
> 
> The PMC of a project manages the project. PMC members are expected to 
> manage the project as "individuals", not as a representative of their 
> employer. This doesn't mean that a company doesn't have influence on a project. 
> They certainly do. However, the PMC is expected to insure that the community is 
> operating in an open manner, to help resolve any disputes that may arise (e.g. 
> I want to implement feature 'Foo', but you want to implement feature 'Bar' and 
> we can't reach agreement -- the PMC is expected to help mediate our disagreement). 
> If the PMC fails to perform our job, the ASF Board can (and will) disband the PMC 
> (and ultimately could stop development on the project all together).
> 
> Not all open source software projects are structured this way. Some are more open 
> than others. IMO, the ASF is as open as they come. I haven't looked at the Contributor

> License Agreement (CLA) for JBoss. Nor have I looked at the by-laws for how their 
> community policies. However, I expect that any contributions you make to jboss.org 
> become the property of RedHat. If you are an independent contributor to a JBoss project

> as an independent contributor, I would not expect that my ability to influence the project

> would be equal to a RedHat employee. 
> 

Super! This is sufficient for me to understand the distinction of Apache
and JBoss. I've heard the successful meritocracy about Apache before,
and now I know it better. Thank you very much!

> > 
> >> The departure of employees following an acquisition is not unusual.
> >> JBoss was "commercial". RedHat is "commercial". RedHat is also
> >> "larger". I expect there were a number of reasons why JBoss employees
> >> might have left: cultural, philosophical, and economic.
> > 
> > Exactly, it should be a problem when combining open source development
> > into a commercial environment, not existing in Geronimo, isn't it?
> 
> Well, JBoss was a company. They developed JBoss and were attempting to 
> make a profit. It was a "commercial environment" prior to the acquisition. 
> I'm sure it was a different environment (e.g. smaller, more entrepreneurial, 
> more technical freedom, etc). However, both companies were attempting to 
> make money via the creation of JBoss. 

Exactly the point:)

> > Would you mind if i ask some questions about the "sponsor
> > participation"? Does that mean companies should give some money to ASF
> > for Geronimo? Or they just needs to allocate their employees to
> > contribute to Geronimo? 
> 
> The latter. Companies do donate money to the ASF (see http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html).

> These contributions are used by the ASF to run the foundation, maintain infrastructure
(hardware, 
> software, networking, power), legal, etc. However, this money is not used to directly
fund software 
> development on ASF projects.

> Companies are able to ask their employees to participate in/ contribute to a particular
project.
> 

OK, thanks.

> >  I appreciate your help very much. They are quite precious for me.
> > Sorry to bother you again.
> 
> No problem. Good luck with your research!

Thanks a lot for so many help. And Best wishes to you all! 
-- 
Xiujuan Ma






Mime
View raw message