ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David E. Jones" <d...@me.com>
Subject Re: Discussion: Replace framework by Moqui.
Date Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:07:35 GMT

> On 20 Apr 2015, at 12:48, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com> wrote:
> On 20/04/2015 3:11 PM, David E. Jones wrote:
>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 11:35, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
>>> Would Moqui become a sub-project of OFBiz with distinct deliverable with an Apache
>>> Or is that too much community?
>> IMO they are better as distinct projects. There is a chance Moqui Framework could
become a separate ASF project, though the name "Apache Moqui" is oddly contradictory (I chose
the name based on Moqui Marbles, but it is also another name for the Hopi tribe). More seriously,
these days I like the distributed and moderated approaches used in the Linux kernel more than
the community approach mandated by the ASF.
> What would be the problem of it being part of OFBiz in the same way that FOP and Batik
are part of the XLMGraphics project or Jetspeed is part of the Portals project.
> A lot less work than a TLP but still benefiting from Apache.
> Would not have to call of Apache Moqui. It would just be Moqui , part of Apache OfBiz

XML Graphics and Portals are both umbrella projects, meant to have sub-projects, and OFBiz
is not. OFBiz could be restructured that way, and perhaps even have sub-projects without that
restructuring sort of like the Jackrabbit Oak project, but still not sure if it makes sense.
On that note: if a Moqui-based (or Moqui and Mantle based) version of OFBiz were built it
might make sense as a sub-project just like Oak is of Jackrabbit. On a far side note: Oak
looks great but I wish it ran on something other than MongoDB so it could be embedded for
dev and smaller deployments!

The process of becoming a TLP isn't that much of a concern to me. It takes time, but is worth
it to establish a firm foundation for the project going forward.

The main issues that concern me are the various and changing policies of the ASF. I have a
hard time seeing the point of trademarks for open source projects, for example. The community
model is another concern, I don't like the structure as much as certain alternatives in the
open source world (even if I used to think it was the best approach, or at least something
similar to the ASF approach). It may be possible to manage a more distributed community and
code base with various fork repositories and feature/issue branches in the style of git (ie
actually using git within the ASF).

During incubation the biggest community risk is _forcing_ a certain number of committers and
PMC members. I don't want to scrape to include people in these roles as they are vital to
the future of the project. I would rather let people come along, express interest, and thoroughly
prove merit before they take on such a role.

>> As for community, regardless of the structure the various Moqui projects are now
in a good place for a bigger community and it is needed for more significant growth in the
projects. There are parallels to OFBiz which was mostly two people until around 2004-2005
when the project exploded (we had other contributors before then, but most not so involved
or enduring). Jacopo was the first really strong contributor in 2003, and remains to this
day! I'm still looking for a "Jacopo" for Moqui... heck, maybe it'll be Jacopo. ;) (No pressure
Jacopo: I know you're a busy man and doing fantastic and important work elsewhere including
OFBiz, Hotwax, and other projects you contribute to.)
>> As for licensing: the public domain "license" is even less restrictive than the Apache
2 license. The one thing that bothers me about the licensing approach, that I'll freely admit
but that I'm not sure how to handle better, is the explicit patent grant that is in the Apache
2 license (which made it incompatible with GPL2, though GPL3 has it too so it is "compatible",
ie no additional restrictions). In theory this shouldn't be a legal issue because releasing
it as public domain means giving up most IP rights, and there is the prior art aspect of it
too, but patent courts these days (at least in the USA) are awful and they don't seem to care
about prior art unless you pay a few million USD to lawyers along with substantial court fees
to get that recognized. In theory it shouldn't be an issue, not sure if it ever has been even
for Apache 2 licensed code, but it could be and in theory the terms in the Apache 2 license
make it cheaper to defend against patent claims (again in theory... chances are there would
still be significant, possibly bankrupting, legal fees to defend against such).
> Being a part of an Apache project makes it harder to try to steal the IP or claim ownership.

Because of the ASF legal fund?


View raw message