Re: [DotGNU]Web Services

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I tend to agree that we should maintain control.  If we're just heading
in the direction of creating a spec, well, that won't achieve our
strategic goals.

I'm still bouncing some of this scenario around in my head, I've been
thinking about it lately, though.

My general belief is that we should support multiple angles of attack. 
Meaning that we should make it easy for developers to implement dotGNU
components and interface with dotGNU servers with little to no changes
to their current infrastructure.  However, to achieve our strategic
goals, we need to leverage some change to the infrastructure in the form
of providing a dotGNU API/spec collection.  I don't know much about
apache modules, off hand, but there has to be a way to write an
interface for GPL'ed apache modules to be run through Apache.  I don't
think that this is difficult, per-se.  At the very least, we write a
minimal AL/BSD licensed wrapper module that simply references to the GNU
GPL'ed dotGNU API - if we have to take a non-GNU GPL route to achieve
this goal. 

However, there's something else to consider:

.Net will also focus on implementing these services within general
software as well, this is where the API comes into play.  While we're
attacking the webservices aspect of hailstorm, we should be ready to
attack the application side as well.  Therefore, we shouldn't rely too
heavily on browser and webserver plugins.  In fact, we should bow these
out in support of the API as much as we can.

        -Barry

John wrote:
> 
> Kamil has a point. Since the Apache License and the GPL are
> incompatible, that is the AL has no provision for copyleft will we:
> 
> 1) Compromise the ethical distinction and write a non-Free software
> component for Apache?
> 2) Write Free libraries under the LGPL to interface to DotGNU and
> release these so that Apache, and other non-GPL projects, can program to
> Dot-GNU without affecting DotGNU or themselves? Provide the basics, not
> the solution.
> 3) Offer no support and just publish the protocols, allow projects under
> Slavery Licenses to write their own modules, as they see fit, under
> their own licenses?
> 
> I would think it essential that we in some way maintain control.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> John Le'Brecage
>