www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Date Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:13:12 GMT
Please note that Rave is a different case.  SurfNet made a significant
donation of code on entry to the incubator. It was one of three complete
implementations that bootstrapped the Rave project. It was not a feature
contribution to an existing project.

Ross

Sent from my tablet
On Nov 23, 2012 12:22 AM, "Martin van den Bemt" <mllist@mvdb.net> wrote:

>
>
> 2012/11/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org>
>
>>  On 21/11/2012 23:49, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>>
>> Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want this
>> to happen at the ASF.
>>
>> Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also
>> work on open source ?
>> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
>> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>> You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
>> based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
>> Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies in
>> the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies without
>> their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive the same
>> treatment.
>>
>> It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based on
>> incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these kind of
>> things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I learned here
>> more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just doesn't feel
>> right.
>>
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>> I've just realized that there are few missing pieces in my mail below:
>>
>>  1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
>> present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
>>
>
> Cool, so they help you develop it. Just thank them when closing the task
> and in the releasenotes (like we always do, also to people who send small
> patches).
>
>
>>  2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since
>> its scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
>> SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
>>
>
> That it is required (=explicitly requested) by surfnet is my biggest issue
> here. It's simply not their decision.
>
>
>>   3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
>> checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
>> feasible, I will just report to them
>>
>
> I think other people gave better input (Ted,
>
>
>>
>> Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right"
>> exactly:
>>
>>  a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code for
>> a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be contributed
>> back to the original project instead of laying in some private repository
>>
>
> No problem here.
>
>
>>
>>  b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
>> NOTICE file
>>
>
> That's the one a bit and that and
>
>
>>
>> If (b) - as I hope - do you think that things would have looked
>> differently if they would have asked me to develop the feature in a private
>> repository and then would have donated such code as a bundle (as it seems
>> to happen with Rave [2])?
>>
>
> Besides the fact that I am not exactly sure what the donations tree in
> rave is about (it contains references to outside website for documentation,
> no renamed package names, etc), it looks better as module donation and
> since the complete code of that module is donated by the same entity a
> notice entry in their module is ok (that's the way they donated it). What
> would not be ok in that instance (at least for me) is some committer just
> committing that code as a module, without following the right processes to
> import a new codebase in Apache.
> You have a hybrid model here, where it is acted like something is a
> donation as a whole, when there is actually just normal development going
> on in a branch with you as the indivudual ASF committer. If it is part of
> the roadmap, you can just add a thanks to surfnet for funding the
> developer. So if it is the case like Benson said (acadamic funding requires
> acknowledgement) I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient.
>
> Hope it is not too late for "polite push-back" to quote Benson. Anyhow
> they are already in our thanks page :
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html for hosting some of our
> servers..
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
>

Mime
View raw message