If I have to choose between the four choices that you proposed I would then choose (1) List no alternative offerings at all.
Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 09:34, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> a écrit : > I don’t think it is intractable to come up with a definition that we use > for inclusion. > > 1. List no alternative offerings at all. > 2. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of > Cassandra. > 3. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of > Cassandra with modifications that extend a list of public APIs. > 4. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of > Cassandra with modifications that extend a list of public APIs, or are > themselves published under ASL v2. > > Listing a product on our website implicitly endorses that offering, and we > should absolutely be restrictive about what we endorse. I’m -1 > unconditionally endorsing competing products, and products that are not > themselves clearly some derivative work that is accessible to the community > under similar terms. > > If we cannot agree on a set of conditions, options (1) and (2) are simple, > easy to administer, adequately restrictive and not inconsistently > permissive. > > I don’t think this website is going to drive a lot of traffic to any of > these businesses, so I doubt any of them should be upset at any loss of > revenue. The question is simply one of principle for us as a project. > > > > From: Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 08:10 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page? > I feel that we are going into a too restrictive direction. I believe that > we have more to win by being open and welcoming. > -1 for the strict approach and for the licences. > > Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 00:40, Ben Bromhead <b...@instaclustr.com> a écrit : > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 2:38 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The obvious core responsibility of the website should be to ASLv2 > > > permissively licensed Apache Cassandra and secondarily to CQL as a > > protocol > > > IMO. I don't think we as a project should be tracking derivative works, > > > forks, or other things built on top of the code-base and certainly not > > > things with wildly varied licensing (AGPL, proprietary closed, etc). > > > > > > To go that route we either become fully inclusive of everything or > become > > > Kingmakers, and either way there's the consequence of inconsistent > levels > > > of vetting, maintenance, and dilution of what it means to "be > Cassandra". > > > There's plenty of other websites for other projects and everyone has > > access > > > to search engines. > > > > > > > This makes sense to me as a line in the sand to draw if we are going > down a > > strict path. > > > > It would be up to whoever wants to be added to the list to demonstrate > this > > is the case. > > > > There would still be some degree of honesty required as well on the > service > > providers part. > > >
