2 resultados para Apache Indians.
em Digital Peer Publishing
Resumo:
Open Source (OS) community offers numerous eLearning platforms of both types: Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Learning Content Systems (LCS). General purpose OS intermediaries such as SourceForge, ObjectWeb, Apache or specialized intermediaries like CampusSource reduce the cost to locate such eLearning platforms. Still, it is impossible to directly compare the functionalities of those OS software products without performing detailed testing on each product. Some articles available from eLearning Wikipedia show comparisons between eLearning platforms which can help, but at the end they barely serve as documentation which are becoming out of date quickly [1]. The absence of integration activities between OS eLearning platforms - which are sometimes quite similar in terms of functionalities and implementation technologies - is sometimes critical since most of the OS projects possess small financial and human resources. This paper shows a possible solution for these barriers of OS eLearning platforms. We propose the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) concept to capture functionalities and to identify similarities between available OS eLearning platforms. This contribution evolved from a fruitful discussion at the 2nd CampusSource Developer Conference at the University of Muenster (27th August 2004).
Resumo:
Open source software projects are multi-collaborative works incorporating the contributions of numerous developers who, in spite of publishing their code under a public license such as GPL, Apache or BSD, retain the copyright in their contributions. Having multiple copyright-owners can make the steering of a project difficult, if not impossible, as there is no ultimate authority able to take decisions relating to the maintenance and use of the project. This predicament can be remedied by centring the dispersed copyrights in a single authority via contributor agreements. Whether to introduce contributor agreements, and if so in which form, is a pressing question for many emerging, but also for established projects. The current paper provides an insight into the ethos of different projects and their reason for adopting or rejecting particular contributor agreements. It further examines the exact set-up of the contributor agreements used and concludes that smart drafting can blur the difference between CAAs and CLAs to a considerable extent, manoeuvring them into a legal grey area. To avoid costly litigation to test the legal enforceability of individual clauses, this paper proposes the establishment of an international committee comprised of developers, product managers and lawyers interested in finding a common terminology that may serve as a foundation for every contributor agreement