[epic] prospect of the project respect the community

[mckaygerhard]

hi i noted the product at the web page, but do not check the hole license, neither if are a real open source project..

the purpose of the project

• to give the company a solution to use own products and redistribute as other product?
• to get involved and reward a cooperation with community?

This is based on alpine linux and has a great feature, glibc repo packages, but if are only to satifaced the company community just think will not being so long.. does the community trust it, or is its success because users really don't care if it's free or not, they don't care if there is a company behind it if it works very well?

Rules of the alpaquita linux

• how is it ruled? What determines your goals?
• Is it commanded by a community or is it directly a toy of the company?

Seems its not managed by community or do not apport to alpine linux community.. many commits are mirrored here from alpine repo..

Also i check some of the APKBUILD files and sources seems good but not all the files are here.. many are retrieved from https://packages.bell-sw.com/alpaquita/distfiles/ and its not allowed to download manually (Seems)

related to #2

[vasily4isaenko]

Dear mckaygerhard!

I will try to answer all our quetions in one place.

to give the company a solution to use own products and redistribute as other product?

As you have probably noted Alpaquita is very similar to Alpine and decision to release Alpaquita was to address what is missing there for our customers - provide support, targeted package set, improved performance for musl and glibc flavor. Please refer to EULA for other questions - https://github.com/bell-sw/alpaquita-installer/blob/main/alpaquita_installer/EULA

to get involved and reward a cooperation with community?

Cooperation with the community is not the main goal, but any contributions are very welcome especially if you are using open versions of the project and want to improve what could be missing or deserving a fix helpful for all.

This is based on alpine linux and has a great feature, glibc repo packages, but if are
only to satifaced the company community just think will not being so long.. does the
community trust it, or is its success because users really don't care if it's free or
not, they don't care if there is a company behind it if it works very well?

If you are an enterprise you would know that it is important if there is a company behind it to provide proper support. Pure community projects would require that, like Linux Kernel needs Red Hat or Oracle to deliver own kernel builds based on community work.

Rules of the alpaquita linux
how is it ruled? What determines your goals?

Our goals to deliver supported version of small, secure and performant Linux that would best serve for Java workloads.
There is no specific contributor's agreement in place since there were no real requests for contributions yet.
If someone would post a contribution we would manage that on case by case basis till an agreement and process are enforced.

Is it commanded by a community or is it directly a toy of the company?
Seems its not managed by community or do not apport to alpine linux community..
many commits are mirrored here from alpine repo..

It is managed by BellSoft to have more own decisions about updates and releases.

Also i check some of the APKBUILD files and sources seems good but not all the files
are here.. many are retrieved from https://packages.bell-sw.com/alpaquita/distfiles/
and its not allowed to download manually (Seems)

Some distfiles are required to be hosted on BellSoft since there are no other places out there. There is no browser access to those files, however corresponding distfiles are accessible during 'abuild' initiated builds, or wget with a direct link. In case a new contirubution would require a such distfile to be hosted we can consider that option as well.

What are the allowed licenses for the base OS (kernel and default packages, seems its linux based)

According to the EULA - https://github.com/bell-sw/alpaquita-installer/blob/main/alpaquita_installer/EULA "The license for each component will be located in the licensing documentation and/or in the component's source code.", so nothing is changed here and all components are expected to have permissive liceneses. This is also required for new packages to add, for intance.

What licenses are used when distributing applications developed or modified

Applications developed by 3-rd parties can have own licenses.

What licenses are allowed when an user/entity made an apport/package/adition ¡?

Addition to an existing package can not make changes to an already used license. For completely new packages a permissive license must be used.

respect issue #2 how its workflow contribution for aports ?

As mentioned earlier a such process is not defined yet, however you can make your contributions by submitting pull requests. Such pull requests will be tested internally and integrated if applicable.

[mckaygerhard]

Dear mckaygerhard!

I will try to answer all our quetions in one place.

THanks for resume, i open separate issues cos is a right way due some topics are similar but not the same.. lest check:

goals and focus of the project response

to give the company a solution to use own products and redistribute as other product?

As you have probably noted Alpaquita is very similar to Alpine and decision to release Alpaquita was to address what is missing there for our customers - provide support, targeted package set, improved performance for musl and glibc flavor. Please refer to EULA for other questions - https://github.com/bell-sw/alpaquita-installer/blob/main/alpaquita_installer/EULA

its not similar is cloned from.. but i understand the idea and the reasons; i must read carefully the EULA, but i praised the idea.. of a "alpine glibc6" distro.. almost a base distro...

licensing clarifications and contribution feeedback

to get involved and reward a cooperation with community?

Cooperation with the community is not the main goal, but any contributions are very welcome especially if you are using open versions of the project and want to improve what could be missing or deserving a fix helpful for all.

errr interesting.. not so GLP in fact.. but at least you all offers some of the sources.. but not all the sources.. so there's no real open source here.. that's the point

This is based on alpine linux and has a great feature, glibc repo packages, but if are

ok is not "very similar" is BASED ON ALPINE LINUX

only to satifaced the company community just think will not being so long.. does the
community trust it, or is its success because users really don't care if it's free or
not, they don't care if there is a company behind it if it works very well?

If you are an enterprise you would know that it is important if there is a company behind it to provide proper support. Pure community projects would require that, like Linux Kernel needs Red Hat or Oracle to deliver own kernel builds based on community work.

that's not 100% as is.. i will not extend in a well know topic.. so dont take the community as dumb

Rules of the alpaquita linux
how is it ruled? What determines your goals?

Our goals to deliver supported version of small, secure and performant Linux that would best serve for Java workloads. There is no specific contributor's agreement in place since there were no real requests for contributions yet. If someone would post a contribution we would manage that on case by case basis till an agreement and process are enforced.

**Its a good solution and a great idea.. as I mention i parised the product.. **

Is it commanded by a community or is it directly a toy of the company?
Seems its not managed by community or do not apport to alpine linux community..
many commits are mirrored here from alpine repo..

It is managed by BellSoft to have more own decisions about updates and releases.

i understand this respect your clients and the needs of the products.. but if that is the main purpose, why as open source? why offers the sources? cos the licensin are pretty mixed and confused throught as i can see in explanations.. by example there's no feedback to commnuty (only offers the sources.. but some patches are not allowed)

what I want to say is that it is a bit strange or rather there is something mixed here, the licenses are GPL so the contributions are something like "there they are if you are interested", additional relicensing and mixing with a EULA

Also i check some of the APKBUILD files and sources seems good but not all the files
are here.. many are retrieved from https://packages.bell-sw.com/alpaquita/distfiles/
and its not allowed to download manually (Seems)

Some distfiles are required to be hosted on BellSoft since there are no other places out there. There is no browser access to those files, however corresponding distfiles are accessible during 'abuild' initiated builds, or wget with a direct link. In case a new contirubution would require a such distfile to be hosted we can consider that option as well.

that was i noted.. there's no diff files in github repo so the previous topic is pretty confused about licensing

What are the allowed licenses for the base OS (kernel and default packages, seems its linux based)

According to the EULA - https://github.com/bell-sw/alpaquita-installer/blob/main/alpaquita_installer/EULA "The license for each component will be located in the licensing documentation and/or in the component's source code.", so nothing is changed here and all components are expected to have permissive liceneses. This is also required for new packages to add, for intance.

What licenses are used when distributing applications developed or modified

same of the previous topic.. more mixed things

Applications developed by 3-rd parties can have own licenses.

What licenses are allowed when an user/entity made an apport/package/adition ¡?

Addition to an existing package can not make changes to an already used license. For completely new packages a permissive license must be used.

about workflow contribution

respect issue #2 how its workflow contribution for aports ?

As mentioned earlier a such process is not defined yet, however you can make your contributions by submitting pull requests. Such pull requests will be tested internally and integrated if applicable.

Great! its brilliant, at least you all are open to changes..

however, as I see previously that it is according to the needs of the company, the result of these contributions will be mostly predictable (not to say that mostly will deny thems)