Robert Excellent points:
>>> ...The full proposal is here: >>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal.. >> >> That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems >> such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means >> that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using >> open source tools. > > good point > > apache has developed open source Java stuff for years, even when it > was a closed, proprietary platform. but the status of java (closed but > no charge) was well and widely known, and open source tools were > developed to build and test. this is probably less true in this case. The only pay-for requirement is a Windows OS to run the .NET tools at this point. So for a pure OSS developer, there will be parts of the project which will not be buildable, until MONO implements those parts. However, many Apache projects have Windows builds (e.g. Apache HTTPD), so this won't be unique. > 1. There should be no barrier for ports of open source code dependent > on a proprietary platform to an open one (for example .net to - > hypothetically - mono). +1. I believe that everything Stonehenge is potentially doing is covered by Microsoft's OSPA. Maybe Kamal can comment. > One great thing about FOSS is that the code > gains a life independent of it's creators. I think that everyone > involved needs to be comfortable about this possibility, and accept > that it's fine to happen on shore (as part of the project) rather than > off shore. +1 > 2. when developing open source software for proprietary platforms, > using open, publicly document APIs is important. AIUI this is the case > for .NET +1 > 3. payment for development tools to contribute to the project may > prove a barrier to new contributions. apache has always used open > source build and test tools. this allows anyone with energy to dive in > and contribute. i would hope that there would be no barriers to > supporting open source build and test environments if volunteers > stepped up to create and maintain them. I believe that Microsoft already makes all the requirements to build and test the .NET code available to Apache Committers via the MSDN subscriptions it offers. So that is at least a help, if not the final answer. > 4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's > important that contributors understand this and don't just start > diving in. it may be better to start off shore. +1, tho again an MSDN license should help. >> We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no >> against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts >> well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to >> benefit from the project as well. > > pioneering something like > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling might be useful more > widely +1! Paul > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2 Apache Synapse PMC Chair OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
