First of all, Github isn't a foundation. It's infrastructure. If all you want and need is someplace to host your project, Github is fine.

If, however, you want to build a *community* around your project, then you need the sort of help and guidance that a foundation provides. ASF, Eclipse, Outercurve, et.al. have some underlying "requirements" regarding that (for example, at the ASF the project must be under the ALv2, at Eclipse it must be the EPL (although there are ways around that)). Outercurve has the lowest barrier to that. OC doesn't force one license or another (it must be an Open Source license though), nor does it force a particular governance model, nor a specific infrastructure. In fact, I would suggest that people who are hosting their projects @ Github and really want them to be a viable Open Source project, *needs* a foundation like Outercurve to help them make that transition. Most projects on Github don't even have an associated LICENSE. Sweet Sassy Molassy!

But to your question: I feel that the ASF does a great job enriching the community, even if just because it realized that the *power* of the community is what drives open source and open source projects.

What did Spock say was that old Vulcan proverb: only Nixon could go to China

Outercurve isn't a part of MS at all. So it'll have no impact although, if the new CEO is more "understanding" of Open Source, it's likely that there will be opportunities for Outercurve and other orgs to help MS see the light.

Haters gonna hate.

In the trenches, it may seem as if FLOSS has won, but it hasn't... at least not yet. There is still quite a bit of FUD related to it, especially in the gov't arena. So any foundation or entity which helps promote FLOSS is useful.

Outercurve sets out to do some of the things that other foundations don't. For example, we are agnostic about governance models and which FLOSS license to use, which separates it from some more well-known foundations :) But also the main focus of OC to to provide in-depth assistance in mentoring projects and helping them reach their potential. It's a much more "hands-on" foundation, and that's why our mentors are so important. Most foundations assume that projects and people have a pretty good understanding of open source; Outercurve actually teaches it.

I do care about Software Freedom, but I also care about User Freedom itself. Open Source and Free Software have a lot more in common than people think, but it is the differences which people focus on and which, imo, make it easier for FLOSS detractors to "prove" that FLOSS is broken. Apache may focus on the ALv2, but Outercurve accepts all Open Source and Free Software licenses.

Slashdot is now one of many great places to get info; back in the "glory days" it was one of a very small number.

I think that relevance is hard to gauge in many ways, and that's why more "crowd-sourced" venues are popular, because they allow the masses to determine what's important and not. But, as can be seen w/ Wikipedia for example, the masses aren't always "correct" :) But relying on known experts and people *really* in touch w/ the community is also a Good Thing and could be encouraged a bit more.

I am not aware of the details of that situation, but, to be honest, I'm not sure what they are talking about. The policy terms are similar to those of numerous FOSS organizations, which are based around the idea of openness and transparency. That's what the point of that statement is regarding User Submissions.

I would say that the 2 "biggest" Outercurve projects are NuGet and ChronoZoom. NuGet is MS related (think Maven for .NET) but Chronozoom is universal

As long as Oracle controls the EA and JCP, and it does, believe me, there's no way that Harmony could be rebooted since their requirements for access to the TCK would prevent Apache from releasing Harmony as a real Open Source project, no matter what the license of the project.

Outercurve accepts projects from anyplace, although it's true that many of come from MS or have a distinct MS orientation. But that it common with all foundations when they start. After all, the Apache Software Foundation started w/ "just" Apache; Eclipse w/ Eclipse and even the Linux Foundation was about Linux itself. But foundations grow beyond their initial roots, and that's what we're doing w/ Outercurve.

Only Anonymous Cowards :)

Reform is what's required... and if it leads to an actual ban, well ... *grin*

My thoughts are that you can't discuss the issue of s/w patents in a vacuum. There are a LOT of bad s/w patents out there, and tend to muddy the water. So I don't have an issue per se regarding s/w patents in and of themselves, but as it is know, things are really broken. So +1 to NZ for taking a stand!