Hi Thorsten, On 10/01/2022 16:48, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
I did propose a concrete change which sparked this conversation. Here it is in case you missed it:Again, for this to be constructive, could you please suggest concrete changes to the proposed policy?
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00029.html"1) Creating clear agreements with the projects we support/promote so that, even if a team/company writes the majority of the code, we will have clear indications of the benefits we can together bring to the community and the relevant expectations from both sides."
That should be added in the "## De-atticization requirements. The form could be along the line of:
- If the parties involved in the development of the project are commercial entities an agreement must be signed to make clear the final scope, the benefits to the community and the eventual limitations in publishing it following TDF's objectives.
Then, as explained in the same email:"This agreement, to be drafted by our legal team in collaboration with TDF's counsel, should be added to the proposal before voting as it should be part of the on-boarding process for projects we intend to support."
That is the same agreement we should prepare, and eventually adapt, for "atticisided", current and new projects hosted by TDF.
The rationale should have been extensively explained in the thread. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
