Hi all, I agree that the ASF doesn't have to allow such a Support Inc. thing. However, if it officially supported it or even stated that it's fine with the way it operates that could be a benefit for Support Inc. being accepted.
Of course, would this be a company with paid staff, therefore people doing business through it, definitely will have to pay a certain low percentage or a fixed amount for contracts going through it. I'd even suggest that excess earnings could flow back to the ASF as donations. Also, would I think the core purpose of this Support Inc should be to help provide a sustainable income for individuals or small businesses that work in Open-Source and not to become the next unicorn, that brings millions of dollars to its shareholders pockets. I bet a company known for operating this way would have a plus on the marketing side. I at least would rather hire a company that I know the money flows back into the people behind the projects than into the pockets of shareholders. Initially I even thought this might be something we could use part of that 500k$ donation for, which should be targeted at creating an endowment. I know we're currently struggling with this a bit, but I have no idea if the ASF would be allowed to do such a move. So perhaps a Support Endowment might be an option? Chris -----Original Message----- From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> Sent: Mittwoch, 20. April 2022 21:31 To: Apache Community Dev <dev@community.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Crazy or good Idea? On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:32 PM Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@apache.org> wrote: > > [snip]. Actually, such a company would basically only need the > blessing of the ASF and [snip] Honest question: why? Since the beginning of the ASF, there have been companies which provide commercial support for one or more of our products. None of them have had any sort of blessing or exclusive rights. The ASF doesn't care how they are structured or if they are for profit or non-profit. We don't merely tolerate such organizations --as long as they don't make assertions about owning the products or having any sorts of exclusive rights, we welcome and celebrate them. One such company was Covalent, and understanding what worked well and what didn't work so well might be helpful here. I've added a few links at the bottom of this email. By the way, the headline on the first link is something that would be considered very problematic - specifically the word "THE". If there is a need for a blessing, the reasoning behind such a need will have to be explicitly enumerated. As a practical matter, it is difficult to come to consensus with the membership, this doesn't feel like an operational matter which would fall under the purview of the president, so ultimately it is likely that it would have to be the board that provides any blessing. Speaking as a board member: I'd like to encourage the idea of one (or more!) support organizations, but would like to push back on the idea that such organization(s) need any sort of blessing. If I'm wrong, please convince me otherwise. - Sam Ruby https://www.cmswire.com/cms/open-source-cms/covalent-is-the-apache-support-group-001328.php http://www.lannigan.org/Covalent_History_Covalent_Technologies.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
