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" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2012/11/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <[email protected]> > >> 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 > >
