Slashdot Mirror
Live Q&A With Outercurve Foundation President Jim Jagielski
Jim Jagielski is one of the co-founders of the Apache Software Foundation, a director of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), new President of the Outercurve Foundation, and as we mentioned yesterday, your interview subject for the next two hours. Mr. Jagielski will be answering your questions below until 2:00 ET (18:00 GMT). Please keep it to one question per post so everyone gets a chance.
Update: 2pm ET has come and gone. Mr. Jagielski might stick around for a bit and answer questions later so make sure to check back. A big thanks to him for his time and answers! Here's a link to his user page where you can read all his responses.
Update: 2pm ET has come and gone. Mr. Jagielski might stick around for a bit and answer questions later so make sure to check back. A big thanks to him for his time and answers! Here's a link to his user page where you can read all his responses.
My thoughts are that you can't discuss the issue of s/w patents in a vacuum. There are a LOT of bad s/w patents out there, and tend to muddy the water. So I don't have an issue per se regarding s/w patents in and of themselves, but as it is know, things are really broken. So +1 to NZ for taking a stand!
Reform is what's required... and if it leads to an actual ban, well ... *grin*
Only Anonymous Cowards :)
Outercurve accepts projects from anyplace, although it's true that many of come from MS or have a distinct MS orientation. But that it common with all foundations when they start. After all, the Apache Software Foundation started w/ "just" Apache; Eclipse w/ Eclipse and even the Linux Foundation was about Linux itself. But foundations grow beyond their initial roots, and that's what we're doing w/ Outercurve.
As long as Oracle controls the EA and JCP, and it does, believe me, there's no way that Harmony could be rebooted since their requirements for access to the TCK would prevent Apache from releasing Harmony as a real Open Source project, no matter what the license of the project.
How tough is it to consign a project to the Attic?
I would say that the 2 "biggest" Outercurve projects are NuGet and ChronoZoom. NuGet is MS related (think Maven for .NET) but Chronozoom is universal
If you care about software freedom, why doesn't your organization promote copyleft type licenses like the GPL?
Sadly, the apache license doesn't require others to release the code, and helps proprietary projects.
I am not aware of the details of that situation, but, to be honest, I'm not sure what they are talking about. The policy terms are similar to those of numerous FOSS organizations, which are based around the idea of openness and transparency. That's what the point of that statement is regarding User Submissions.
The OuterCurve Foundation mission statement says the Foundation "has no pre-suppositions about particular projects, platforms, or open source licenses." But are there some specific projects that you, personally, would like to work with? Projects you think would benefit the open source community greatly by what you do?
Is Hadoop going to take over the world? Or, I guess an appropriately in-scope question is, do you plan for Hadoop to take over the world? And if so, what happens when it is so aggressively co-opted by private companies that it becomes too difficult to maintain as an actual open platform (ahem Android)?
Slashdot is now one of many great places to get info; back in the "glory days" it was one of a very small number.
I think that relevance is hard to gauge in many ways, and that's why more "crowd-sourced" venues are popular, because they allow the masses to determine what's important and not. But, as can be seen w/ Wikipedia for example, the masses aren't always "correct" :) But relying on known experts and people *really* in touch w/ the community is also a Good Thing and could be encouraged a bit more.
Yesterday there were two stories on Slashdot that made ASF seem like it lost its way. I was surprised that nobody who was mentored through the ASF (as I was) has responded. How do you feel that ASF is when it comes to enriching the open-source developer community through its multiple mentorship programs?
In the trenches, it may seem as if FLOSS has won, but it hasn't... at least not yet. There is still quite a bit of FUD related to it, especially in the gov't arena. So any foundation or entity which helps promote FLOSS is useful.
Outercurve sets out to do some of the things that other foundations don't. For example, we are agnostic about governance models and which FLOSS license to use, which separates it from some more well-known foundations :) But also the main focus of OC to to provide in-depth assistance in mentoring projects and helping them reach their potential. It's a much more "hands-on" foundation, and that's why our mentors are so important. Most foundations assume that projects and people have a pretty good understanding of open source; Outercurve actually teaches it.
Outercurve isn't a part of MS at all. So it'll have no impact although, if the new CEO is more "understanding" of Open Source, it's likely that there will be opportunities for Outercurve and other orgs to help MS see the light.
What did Spock say was that old Vulcan proverb: only Nixon could go to China
First of all, Github isn't a foundation. It's infrastructure. If all you want and need is someplace to host your project, Github is fine.
If, however, you want to build a *community* around your project, then you need the sort of help and guidance that a foundation provides. ASF, Eclipse, Outercurve, et.al. have some underlying "requirements" regarding that (for example, at the ASF the project must be under the ALv2, at Eclipse it must be the EPL (although there are ways around that)). Outercurve has the lowest barrier to that. OC doesn't force one license or another (it must be an Open Source license though), nor does it force a particular governance model, nor a specific infrastructure. In fact, I would suggest that people who are hosting their projects @ Github and really want them to be a viable Open Source project, *needs* a foundation like Outercurve to help them make that transition. Most projects on Github don't even have an associated LICENSE. Sweet Sassy Molassy!
Dashing good looks. Expert coding skills. Oratory skills of a god. And exceptional humility.
The whole DNT issue is now over and done...
I am passionate about Open Source. So anything I can do to help with that, especially when it's directed towards the grassroots developers and their projects, I am drawn to. Being asked to be President allows for Outercurve to really ramp up the efforts started by Sam Ramji in making Outercurve an influential foundation.
Plus, I'm out of my mind. :)
Evah rever on.
Yes, I still write a LOT of code, and I really enjoy doing it.
I would be remiss in not saying that I'm lucky enough to work for Red Hat, which is as passionate about Open Source as I am, and they allow me to indulge in all my Open Source efforts, from coding to the speaking/leadership stuff.
I think what's cool is that whatever organizational and leadership stuff I do, or am known for, arose from my actual coding efforts. It was all kind of "placed" on me, instead of me trying to grab it. And I am hardly unique in that regards. I love how open source does that, that the experts are those who walk-the-walk and talk-the-talk and not just talking heads.
Simply because they *don't* have the best record. One can either gripe and complain, or one can spend some effort in education with the hopes that you make some change for the better. No matter what, it's worth a try. And slowly but surely we *are* seeing some positive changes, and that's a Good Thing.
Thx!
In fact, I *STILL* hack on Apache httpd... So that's about 18+ years of steady development on that project.
What efforts would *you* like to see Outercurve (or whoever) take on to benefit the FLOSS community??
Mostly it was to disassociate the foundation with the Codeplex hosting service. People would, understandably, get them confused, and it further strengthened the belief that the foundation was a "sham" by Microsoft. So we went with Outercurve to create our *own* identity.
Who knows... maybe because he lives in Canada
*duck*
I was a *joke*
Uh oh. He's onto us.
Without a license, whatever code you produce is assumed to be under a copyright. That means legally people can't make copies, etc... A License is what provides the freedoms and openness required to allow people to see your code, share your code, distribute your code, etc...
That's why all those projects on Github that don't have a license are soooooo scary. Even though you can fork, etc, you have no real *rights* to do much of anything which the code. It's the license which grants those rights and freedoms.
Well, the question assumes that Oracle would have donated OpenOffice to Outercurve... I think it's kind of obvious that Oracle wanted it to go to the ASF and that other options weren't on the table. Now this could be implied as a Good Thing (a sort of olive branch towards Apache after the Java fiasco), or a Bad Thing (let those SOBs at Apache take all the heat), depending on one's world-view and mindset.
IMO, the "community" is much larger than "just" the LibreOffice community or the old OpenOffice community. The various versions and offshoots of OpenOffice are all part of this larger community, and so the question also assumes that "the community" is just LibreOffice itself, which I disagree with.
In all cases, IMO Outercurve would have handled it similarly to the way the ASF did: accept the code donation and welcome any and all comers with open arms. What would have happened after *that* is anyone's guess.
Typo: It should be the 'EC' not 'EA': Executive Committee
Both the Microsoft Public License and the Microsoft Reciprocal License are Free and Open Source licenses (as determined by the FSF and OSI). The others ain't and so there's no need to use them, imo.
And yet, you are here as well...
Strange, huh?
The issue is that Oracle controls who gets the TCK and they put restrictions on it for Apache that they didn't put on for themselves (OpenJDK). Despite having a signed agreement to the contrary as well as agreeing w/ Apache back before Oracle bought Sun.
Weird, huh?
Why? A couple of reasons. First of all, it was the basis for Apache entering into the EC and the JCP. Our involvement was predicted on the ability to obtain TCKs for Apache projects. Secondly, the ASF was promised it, but then denied the TCK (actually, an *open source compatible* TCK), and that's simply Not Right. Finally, the goal of creating s/w is that it be used, and the lack of certification significantly hampers that, as well as opens the project to submarine patents. Think Oracle is going to sue itself?