Re: [unrev-II] Request For Comments

From: Eugene Eric Kim (
Date: Tue May 16 2000 - 00:40:49 PDT

  • Next message: Eugene Eric Kim: "[unrev-II] syncing online and offline efforts"

    It's clear that one of the things we have to do is sync up the efforts of
    the people meeting in the Bay Area with those outside of the area
    interested in participating. I'll send out another e-mail on that, but
    I'll address John's proposal here first.

    On Fri, 12 May 2000, John "sb" Werneken wrote:

    > ACTION suggestion (if as a non-participant in the coding, I may do so): how
    > about an "RFC UNREV-II-1: Request for Comments, to UNREV-II Group": "That
    > our work carry the Free BSD License, of the type not requiring the
    > acknowledgment". From what I see, ALL posters support either open source per
    > se or open source with the ability for derivative work to be made
    > proprietary. From what I understand, that License is accepted as "open
    > source" and allows derivative work to be made proprietary.

    This is essentially where we're at right now. The evaluation process, as
    it currently stands, consists of two things. First, we're putting
    together a list of licensing use cases, to make sure that the license that
    we do choose adequately addresses all of our needs and to document how it
    does that. I've put together a preliminary list of cases, which I will
    send out either tonight or tomorrow.

    Second, we're chatting with leaders of high-profile open source
    projects. We met with Brian Behlendorf of the Apache project and last week, and we're in the process of setting up meetings with
    other high-profile projects with different licenses.

    > Suggestion Two: use source forge, with our own primary site as a mirror;
    > this is an established and apparently functional method of supporting an
    > open source project, to get things going.

    On Tuesday, we'll be meeting with SourceForge to discuss collaboration
    opportunities. Whether or not we use SourceForge as our primary
    development platform remains to be seen. I think there are other
    collaboration opportunities that are better suited for our needs. Keep in
    mind that this meeting is only preliminary; nothing may come out of it.

    > Suggestion Three: use Eric's mission statement stuff: our intent would be
    > announced, not as forking Source Forge, but as transcending it, developing
    > an OHS for software development, which if and when it attained a 1.0
    > release, we would replace Source Forge with it, and then continue
    > development of our tool, using our tool to do so.

    This is definitely one possible collaboration opportunity. If the OHS
    meets our requirements, then, in theory, SourceForge will want to
    incorporate it into their site. Keep in mind that we're not competing
    with SourceForge. Its primary purpose of providing infrastructure for
    open source projects is not affected by the OHS.


    +=== Eugene Eric Kim ===== ===== ===+
    |       "Writer's block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they        |
    +=====  can have an excuse to drink alcohol."  --Steve Martin  ===========+

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Join's affiliate program and enjoy numerous benefits. To learn more click here: ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Community email addresses: Post message: Subscribe: Unsubscribe: List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 16 2000 - 00:59:36 PDT