www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Philosophy (was: Returned post for committers@apache.org)
Date Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:01:16 GMT
One of the things I like best about the ASF is that we're pragmatic, it 
even says so on our front page:  8-)

"The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, consensus 
based development process, an open and pragmatic software license, and a 
desire to create high quality software that leads the way in its field."

The pragmatisim in our license extends to how we operate. 
Fundamentally, the ASF is a non-profit devoted to providing software for 
the public good.  In most cases, we allow our projects and communities 
to build software in whatever way they choose, as long as it meets basic 
community criteria of being open and collaborative.

In terms of infrastructure supported tooling - i.e. stuff the ASF 
provides to multiple projects as a basic service - while we'd certainly 
like to use AL-compatibly licensed software or other open source 
licensed software - we're not going to turn up our noses at any freely 
offered solution that does a better job.  The choice of tools - in this 
case (IIRC) a tool that's easier to admin and slightly more powerful - 
does not change our core belief that the software we produce must use 
our license.

The flip side to this is meritocracy, both in terms of software and 
support.  Deploying and supporting something like Clover or Cobertura 
takes admin time as well.  We're happy to evaluate other solutions that 
provide the same functionality as Clover - as long as there are proven 
*infrastructure-approved* volunteers who are willing to donate the work 
required to make it as useful a tool, *and* to continue to maintain it.

This an obvious and fundamental difference from much of the GPL world, 
where many believe keeping the faith is a primary importance.  At the 
ASF, the primary importance is providing openly licensed software for 
the public good.

- Shane

Henri Yandell <hyandell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I question the labeling of Cobertura as our dogfood and Clover as not
> our dogfood.
> Which is 'our dogfood', the GPL product or the proprietary product
> built on top of permissively licensed Open Source (not that I know if
> Clover is like this; but I've heard the same argument against JIRA)?
> Do we support the "Open Source movement", whatever that might be
> described as today, or our users?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org

View raw message