The CDDL is for common development on the Jersey project, not forking. There is nothing stoping GPL from being forked and the fork can even be kept private as long as it's not distributed.
I understand the CDDL + GPL as an either\or choice, not a union.
cam
On 12/04/2011, at 2:55 PM, Markus Karg wrote:
> That would make sense if lots of users would want to maintain forks
> while still accepting CDDL. How much users do want to do that?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Schindl [mailto:tom.schindl_at_bestsolution.at]
> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 15:53
> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>
> For me its exactly the opposite the more controlled a project is the
> better it is to use DVCS because if the one big player is refusing to
> integrate my patch (because of whatever reason) it is much more easier
> to main my own fork and merge with HEAD every now and then.
>
> So +1 for git from me.
>
> Tom
>
> Am 12.04.11 15:47, schrieb Markus Karg:
>> That would make sense if it would be Jersey's target to be community
>> controlled. But actually it is Oracle developed and with so few people
>> that SVN is far from being exhausted. I do not see that there are so
>> many community contributions that a centralized repository would be
>> needed. As long as every contributor has to sign a contract with
> Oracle
>> and support CDDL (instead of solely GPL or LGPL) I do not see that
>> Jersey would really become a community driven project. Currently
> Jersey
>> is an Oracle-only project and nothing that I have experienced so far
>> would convince me that a change is really in progress.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cameron Heavon-Jones [mailto:cmhjones_at_gmail.com]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 15:41
>> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
>> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>
>> Workflow aside, a DVCS provides an infrastructure which is capable of
>> being developed and extended in an non-centralized way. That isn't
> about
>> having a decentralized software architecture but non-centralized
>> organizational control.
>>
>> A GPL project should provision for community dissension and a DVCS
>> provides this as infrastructure.
>>
>> cam
>>
>> On 12/04/2011, at 2:01 PM, Mohan KR (mkannapa) wrote:
>>
>>> + 1 SVN.
>>>
>>> I would echo the same comments, if the current workflow is supported
>> by SVN, why on earth would one
>>> want to switch to a DVCS. I have used both GIT/Hg, yeah I see the
>> benefits of local repositories for a
>>> really distributed teams. But if one is going to "centralize" it
>> (push/pull), to synchronize the "nodes", I say
>>> what's the point?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mohan KR
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marek Potociar [mailto:marek.potociar_at_oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:31 AM
>>> To: users_at_jersey.java.net
>>> Subject: [Jersey] SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>>
>>> Hey Folks,
>>>
>>> For Jersey 2.x we are considering to switch our VCS from SVN into Git
>> or Mercurial. Sticking to SVN is still an option too. FWIW, here's my
>> take on the topic:
>>>
>>> - Functionality:
>>>
>>> SVN meets most of our existing needs today, I do miss the agile
> nature
>> of DVCS though and ability to fix a recent commit.
>>>
>>> I don't have a clear DVCS winner. Mercurial is compact and easier to
>> learn, esp. if one comes from the SVN background.
>>> It has superior branching and merging support compared to SVN. It's
>> branching concept however seems to be seriously flawed as it is
>> virtually impossible to delete named branches. Also, it is not as
>> flexible as Git and configuring it's extensions can be painful.
>>>
>>> Git is faster than Mercurial, super flexible, and "unix-like" set of
>> coherent tools sharing a common platform rather being one compact
> piece
>> of software. It is thus bendable to most esoteric work flows. Also
> it's
>> merging algorithm is ...wait for it... LEGENDARY! :) Learning to get
>> full use of Git however requires time (and practice).
>>>
>>> - Documentation:
>>>
>>> SVN and Mercurial both seem to provide superior documentation
> compared
>> to Git.
>>>
>>> - Tooling:
>>>
>>> SVN has a great tooling support and so does Git. I don't have a
>> significant experience with Mercurial, but I suppose it will be on par
>> with Git and SVN.
>>>
>>> - Adoption:
>>>
>>> SVN is very popular. Also Git appears to gain larger portion of mind
>> share every day. Git community is very active and visible, e.g.
>> github.org is especially vibrant. It has almost 10x larger community
>> than bitbucket.org for Mercurial.
>>> Mercurial community seems to be both smaller and "quieter".
>>>
>>> So, what would you, members of the community, prefer to use going
>> forward?
>>>
>>> [ ] SVN
>>> [ ] Git
>>> [ ] Mercurial
>>>
>>> Please cast your votes!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marek
>>>