Paul Aviles wrote:
> Michael, I am not saying you are bad, heck no.
> I am only stating something that has happened in the past. It is just history and common sense. Take any of the projects that have started as Open Source and spin out to commercial and you have seen a great deal of the community leaving. Take Sugar, Compiere and Open Bravo as two perfect examples. Once they announced that they were separating the projects into free and paid they lost their momentum. Compiere forked into OB and Adempiere now and Sugar has forked so many times it can be considered now a spoon.
> The big difference at least there is that they are managed under one company umbrella. With BQ that never happened, so we now have different people doing different things. Once again, I am not putting the finger nor blaming anyone.
> Now, I am not the voice for BQ at all. However as a community having someone with vested personal interest does complicate things for the "community", that$Bc`QT(B all.
> Besides the obvious differences, are you and others going to include the roadmap for your own products into BQ? If not, then there is nothing wrong with that, but then lets called it a fork lets all be happy. Then we can I guess agree to some common grounds and move forward.
> Don't make more of my comments because there is nothing else behind.
I have been dealing with BQ since it migrated from the Raq550. Many
contributories on this list have had their own agenda as how to handle
this as an open source project, but as a group this has always stayed
strong to-gater! I feel that people like Michael or Brian should be
looked at as, ... contributers.... then "gainers".... from this
project....lets take a second to look at what they have contributed to
this project with out gain.....my 2 canadian cents