>>Now I AM confused.
>>I understand that ActiveVFP is ASP.NET + VFP and it's free.
>>So why is it, again, that ActiveVFP doesn't "fit"?
>>By the way, do you know if the SednaX "sponsors" asked ClaudeF if the source was provided or available for provision?
>
>There is no firm definition of what fits or not. Basically, what fits if what the core contributors are willing to work on relative to their free time and the other priorities in the project. What is the point of adding something to an open project if nobody is going to enhance it, and why does it have to be part of an existing project rather than part of it's own new open project? I have no idea what was discussed on the ActiveVFP issue. Generally, the original authors of a code base are the ones who create a new open source project for that code base - and it should not matter what was asked or discussed. Two questions you should consider are, why would ActiveVFP evolve as an open source project within the SednaX project better than it would as it's own open source project? - and, why doesn't Claude or someone interested in ActiveVFP go ahead and create their own open project around the ActiveVFP code base and get volunteers to contribute to it's evolution?

I hope you don't take the same approach - split things up helter-skelter - in you new job "building community" for whatever it is.
I realize you have ZERO say regarding SednaX "content". But the approach you have been advocating is isolation as opposed to "community".