You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Victor NOËL <vi...@linagora.com> on 2015/09/04 17:24:06 UTC
RE: Moving Apache Extras
Hi,
I come in a bit late on the discussion (I hope I won't break the mail
threading, I don't have a message to answer to…).
We were discussing the subject on camel-users and I was wondering if you
were aware of the very problematic behaviour of SourceForge?
I am referring to the following story with the Gimp project:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer/
Basically, they started putting adware and spyware in installers of
opensource projects without their consent.
After Gimp removed themselves from SourceForge, they continued by
impersonating them, see:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00097.html
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00098.html
Do we really want apache extra to be hosted by an organisation like that?
Just my 2cents… sorry for arriving so late in the discussion.
Victor
--
Vous utilisez la version libre et gratuite d'OBM, développée et
supportée par Linagora.
Contribuez à la R&D du produit en souscrivant à une offre entreprise.
http://pro.obm.org/ - http://www.linagora.com
Re: Moving Apache Extras
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> It is useful that this kind of feedback reaches ComDev, so projects learn
> from each other and can make informed decisions.
As Jan and me have written several times, OpenOffice moved its "Extras"
area (which, in the OpenOffice case, consists simply in a binary file
repository for some build dependencies) to SourceForge months ago.
In the OpenOffice case SourceForge was a natural choice anyway since
they host the OpenOffice binary downloads and they are quite reliable
from a technical point of view.
Of course, the SourceForge reputation incidents were discussed at length
on the OpenOffice lists (even though OpenOffice was unaffected at all;
they were discussed as a matter of principle) and you can find
everything in the archives. I'll note that they fixed the issue they had
caused:
http://sourceforge.net/blog/project-mirroring-policies-will-be-revisited-with-our-community-panel-existing-mirrors-removed/
and they also implemented better control on the ads they display. I'm
confident they have learnt to behave.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Moving Apache Extras
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Yes, ASF "central" has no strong opinion on the matter and delegates this
totally to the PMCs.
It is useful that this kind of feedback reaches ComDev, so projects learn
from each other and can make informed decisions.
Cheers
Niclas
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> At Apache Camel we use camel-extras to host Camel components/modules that
> depend on 3rd party dependencies that are incompatible with ASLv2.
>
> After briefly discussing with some committers / contributors on our mailing
> lists, I get the impression that most folks would prefer to migrate
> camel-extras to Github rather than SF. Since enabling the ASF Camel Github
> mirror, we have processed 600+ pull requests and I'd venture a guess that
> our generous contributors prefer the Github model for collaborating. In
> fact, some of our most engaged camel-extras committers have expressed their
> dislike for SF – so imposing SF to camel-extras will be like delivering a
> deathblow to the project, as we'll be risking losing those contributors.
>
> Therefore, my question is: are projects obliged to host their extras on the
> ASF's selected platform (Sourceforge)? By reading [1] my conclusion is
> 'no', as extras projects don't belong to the ASF nor do they have to follow
> the ASF organisational model or policies. I'm pretty sure that a VOTE on
> our list would yield Github as the preferred new home.
>
> [1] https://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> *Raúl Kripalani*
> Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
> Integration specialist
> http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
> http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Victor NOËL <vi...@linagora.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I come in a bit late on the discussion (I hope I won't break the mail
> > threading, I don't have a message to answer to…).
> > We were discussing the subject on camel-users and I was wondering if you
> > were aware of the very problematic behaviour of SourceForge?
> >
> > I am referring to the following story with the Gimp project:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer/
> >
> > Basically, they started putting adware and spyware in installers of
> > opensource projects without their consent.
> > After Gimp removed themselves from SourceForge, they continued by
> > impersonating them, see:
> >
> >
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00097.html
> >
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00098.html
> >
> > Do we really want apache extra to be hosted by an organisation like that?
> >
> > Just my 2cents… sorry for arriving so late in the discussion.
> >
> > Victor
> > --
> >
> >
> > Vous utilisez la version libre et gratuite d'OBM, développée et supportée
> > par Linagora.
> > Contribuez à la R&D du produit en souscrivant à une offre entreprise.
> > http://pro.obm.org/ - http://www.linagora.com
> >
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Re: Moving Apache Extras
Posted by Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org>.
At Apache Camel we use camel-extras to host Camel components/modules that
depend on 3rd party dependencies that are incompatible with ASLv2.
After briefly discussing with some committers / contributors on our mailing
lists, I get the impression that most folks would prefer to migrate
camel-extras to Github rather than SF. Since enabling the ASF Camel Github
mirror, we have processed 600+ pull requests and I'd venture a guess that
our generous contributors prefer the Github model for collaborating. In
fact, some of our most engaged camel-extras committers have expressed their
dislike for SF – so imposing SF to camel-extras will be like delivering a
deathblow to the project, as we'll be risking losing those contributors.
Therefore, my question is: are projects obliged to host their extras on the
ASF's selected platform (Sourceforge)? By reading [1] my conclusion is
'no', as extras projects don't belong to the ASF nor do they have to follow
the ASF organisational model or policies. I'm pretty sure that a VOTE on
our list would yield Github as the preferred new home.
[1] https://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
Thanks,
*Raúl Kripalani*
Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
Integration specialist
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Victor NOËL <vi...@linagora.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I come in a bit late on the discussion (I hope I won't break the mail
> threading, I don't have a message to answer to…).
> We were discussing the subject on camel-users and I was wondering if you
> were aware of the very problematic behaviour of SourceForge?
>
> I am referring to the following story with the Gimp project:
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer/
>
> Basically, they started putting adware and spyware in installers of
> opensource projects without their consent.
> After Gimp removed themselves from SourceForge, they continued by
> impersonating them, see:
>
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00097.html
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00098.html
>
> Do we really want apache extra to be hosted by an organisation like that?
>
> Just my 2cents… sorry for arriving so late in the discussion.
>
> Victor
> --
>
>
> Vous utilisez la version libre et gratuite d'OBM, développée et supportée
> par Linagora.
> Contribuez à la R&D du produit en souscrivant à une offre entreprise.
> http://pro.obm.org/ - http://www.linagora.com
>