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.
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.
For me, Open Source is all about empowerment and enabling people to share information for the betterment of mankind. So I am personally drawn towards projects that enable that at some level. I am also about education and advocacy of that empowerment, and that's why I enjoy speaking and presenting about Open Source and communities as much as I do.
Of course, some projects are just fun to hack on and scratch some little itch that I have...
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.
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!
But to your question: I feel that the ASF does a great job enriching the community, even if just because it realized that the *power* of the community is what drives open source and open source projects.
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.
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.
I do care about Software Freedom, but I also care about User Freedom itself. Open Source and Free Software have a lot more in common than people think, but it is the differences which people focus on and which, imo, make it easier for FLOSS detractors to "prove" that FLOSS is broken. Apache may focus on the ALv2, but Outercurve accepts all Open Source and Free Software licenses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Actually, the error message means that Apache 2.0.63 is working fine; it's the backend, which is likely running Tomcat, which is having problems... and that could be for various reasons.
What these trolls depend upon is a growing list of high-profile companies who settle these lawsuits. If you are a large company, even a settlement of $100k is cheaper than the work involved in actually "fighting" the suit, and so companies pay these "nuisance lawsuits" while making sure that whatever agreement they sign makes it clear that settlement doesn't imply that they *believe* the suit (or patent) has merit.
Which is fine for the troll... they get $$ plus are able to say "Look at all these big companies who paid. If they paid us, you can bet you're going to have to", misleading people into thinking that the settlements somehow provide some measure of "validity" to their claims.
They need the big splash settlements to obtain the big payouts: lots of settlements by smaller companies.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
For me, Open Source is all about empowerment and enabling people to share information for the betterment of mankind. So I am personally drawn towards projects that enable that at some level. I am also about education and advocacy of that empowerment, and that's why I enjoy speaking and presenting about Open Source and communities as much as I do.
Of course, some projects are just fun to hack on and scratch some little itch that I have...
Evah rever on.
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. :)
The whole DNT issue is now over and done...
Dashing good looks. Expert coding skills. Oratory skills of a god. And exceptional humility.
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!
But to your question: I feel that the ASF does a great job enriching the community, even if just because it realized that the *power* of the community is what drives open source and open source projects.
What did Spock say was that old Vulcan proverb: only Nixon could go to China
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.
Haters gonna hate.
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.
I do care about Software Freedom, but I also care about User Freedom itself. Open Source and Free Software have a lot more in common than people think, but it is the differences which people focus on and which, imo, make it easier for FLOSS detractors to "prove" that FLOSS is broken. Apache may focus on the ALv2, but Outercurve accepts all Open Source and Free Software licenses.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Only Anonymous Cowards :)
Reform is what's required... and if it leads to an actual ban, well ... *grin*
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!
Yep, it was the backend... standard JVM crash. Gotta luv Java.
Actually, the error message means that Apache 2.0.63 is working fine; it's the backend, which is likely running Tomcat, which is having problems... and that could be for various reasons.
What these trolls depend upon is a growing list of high-profile companies who settle these lawsuits. If you are a large company, even a settlement of $100k is cheaper than the work involved in actually "fighting" the suit, and so companies pay these "nuisance lawsuits" while making sure that whatever agreement they sign makes it clear that settlement doesn't imply that they *believe* the suit (or patent) has merit.
Which is fine for the troll... they get $$ plus are able to say "Look at all these big companies who paid. If they paid us, you can bet you're going to have to", misleading people into thinking that the settlements somehow provide some measure of "validity" to their claims.
They need the big splash settlements to obtain the big payouts: lots of settlements by smaller companies.