www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin van den Bemt <mll...@mvdb.net>
Subject Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Date Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:22:03 GMT
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

>  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


View raw message