This would be my preference.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:22 PM Ben Bromhead <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also comfortable with a strict approach where we just list actual > Apache Cassandra offerings, that also provides good solid clarity to users. > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:06 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > From: Brandon Williams <[email protected]> > > Date: Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 15:44 > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page? > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Joshua McKenzie <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > The obvious core responsibility of the website should be to ASLv2 > > > permissively licensed Apache Cassandra and secondarily to CQL as a > > protocol > > > IMO. I don't think we as a project should be tracking derivative works, > > > forks, or other things built on top of the code-base and certainly not > > > things with wildly varied licensing (AGPL, proprietary closed, etc). > > > > I agree. I don't see how it makes sense for us to promote less > > compatible derivatives with more restrictive licensing. Imitation may > > be flattery but as you pointed out, we don't need to be the ones > > advertising it. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > -- > > Ben Bromhead > > Instaclustr | www.instaclustr.com | @instaclustr > <http://twitter.com/instaclustr> | +64 27 383 8975 >
