httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fran├žois" <francois.pe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.2.7
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:04:09 GMT
2007/9/27, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com>:

> Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the
> history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant
> here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are.
>
>

IMHO, this kind of subtleties concerns marketing. When a company pays
someone to contribute to a software development, it is highly the same than
to invest into this software, however it gets its money back : consulting
(they have got commiters, their customers can directly check what they're
able to do), lobbying (commiters, they can publish their customer's
modification to avoid a re-patch at every new version), marketing (look,
they are promoting open source).

What's being said is that Apache for Windows is a volunteer effort, and that
> William Rowe is, at this moment, the most active of those volunteers. It's
> not a threat at all. It's a reality.
>

I didn't say that quoted text was the threat, but that the whole mail was
threatening. Concerning the volunteer effort, the reality is that a lot of
the current and active commiters are making it for money or fame, to sell
consulting time or books or take a salary from a company happy to have an
apache member among its employees. But, don't mistake: in this case, the
governance of an open-source project is not independent of the money: the
excerpt of Nick Kew's mail is a good example of it. If that user's feature
request were really necessary, why don't let a volunteer develop it ? And it
is obvious and logical that if a feature or a bugfix is prioritized in a
company such as IBM, Covalent or whichever that pays an employee as a
commiter, it will be fixed first, no matter of how many volunteer's patches
are hanging in bugzilla or in attachment of an httpd-dev mail.

Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a
> steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they
> operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality
> of how this operates.
>

I do agree, but aren't ApacheLounge people volunteers to make things move ?
I really don't care about Apache for Windows, but, what about creating
commiters access for these guys if they want to be active ?

Likewise, Apache for BeOs existed due to the efforts of volunteers. It no
> longer exists, because there are no longer volunteers to make it exist.
> Again, reality, not threat.
>
> I'm getting rather weary of the tone of this conversation. I'm still naive
> enough to believe that most of us here truly believe in the notion of Open
> Source. I'm also grown up enough to understand that most of us here have a
> monthly water bill that we have to pay, and that making money is actually a
> very handy thing, and not something to treat as dirty to talk about.
>

I quickly browsed apachelounge forum, it seems that they didn't hide their
code modifications, thus, that's still open source. I didn't talk about free
software here. The notion of Open Source is not incompatible with business.
What make me weary in this situation is the tone of people pointing at AL as
if it were an ugly duck doing a "disservice to the windows user community",
spaming, promoting their own business, etc.

Steffen, we welcome your participation. You have fixes that make 2.2.6 more
> usable on Windows. Great. Submit patches so that 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 contain
> those fixes. Help us make the world better.
>

+1

2007/9/27, Erik Abele <erik@codefaktor.de>:
> Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a
> difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others
> services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after
> every release etc. etc... ;-0

Sure, he just signs with a web site that affiliates to sell his book ;-)
(but I repeat : that's not a problem for me).

> Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this
> whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort
> he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a
> transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute
> them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community
> even more!

Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd, and stop
to flame/troll/point at these guys.
At this time, they will maybe be responsable enough to stop the spam and
adopt the same business model as the other commiter : consulting, lobbying
or marketing. And that will completely reflect a general feeling : it is all
about making money in the most discrete way.

period CR-LF
-- 
*Francois Pesce*

Mime
View raw message