Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 73985 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2009 16:52:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2009 16:52:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 42509 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2009 16:52:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 42317 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2009 16:52:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 33449 invoked by uid 99); 11 Dec 2009 16:48:55 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sf@nuxeo.com designates 209.85.219.210 as permitted sender) Cc: "Incubator-General" Message-Id: <5CEBBA13-EBD4-463F-98BD-760B407CF749@nuxeo.com> From: Stefane Fermigier To: chemistry-dev@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: <267F7EC9C11CCB4C806D30029DA677630DDF68C0@MUCXGC2.opentext.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] OpenCMIS incubator for Content Mangement Interoperability Services (CMIS) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:48:12 +0100 References: <646a352f0912100700q5bc45268vebaa75cbf56c7269@mail.gmail.com> <56C255F88C54014E92512ED3E7848F940467943A@MUCXGC1.opentext.net> <2FC40E43-73EE-4C25-9024-3C94348C4D69@nuxeo.com> <267F7EC9C11CCB4C806D30029DA677630DDF68C0@MUCXGC2.opentext.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Jens H=FCbel wrote: > Hi Chemistry, > > I understand the concerns you might have and the confusion we have =20 > caused. But please do not forget that Open in Open Source has a =20 > meaning. So I am not sure that all the comments I read here are in =20 > accordance with the idea of it. I don't know what's *your* idea of open source, but I stand by my =20 comments and I've been practicing and advocating open source since 1991. More seriously, let's not attack each other's conception of open =20 source, and focus on the question at hand. Everyone, member of the open source community or not, is free to start =20= a new implementation of an existing piece of software or library. This =20= is a good thing when the existing software is in maintenance mode and =20= not evolving anymore, or so crufty that a new design is needed, etc. =20 But when we are speaking of two young projects, under the umbrella of =20= the same organisation, I think this is very wrong. S. -- Stefane Fermigier, Founder and Chairman, Nuxeo Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM) Web: http://www.nuxeo.com/ - Tel: +33 1 40 33 79 87 New: follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/sfermigier --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org