Hi,
> David & I are going to be full employees of Aurora. Most of my contract with
> them is run-of-the-mill stuff, with the exception of a few not so
> r-o-t-m clauses about code ownership & licensing of my work to ensure
> that Midgard remains [L]GPL. I'll be doing my work from home, with a
> trip to Paris every now and then. I'm not complaining :)
The trips to Paris aren't anything to complain about unless you can't read
the menu in a restaraunt that serves sausage made from pig intestines.
The clauses that Emile is referring to are an entirely different animal.
I've inquired about recieving legal consoltation concerning these issues
and the FSF has offered limited probono (sic). I also have a U.S.
corporate laywer who I eventually will pay to construct or advise on the
issues of non-competition and confidentiality. I consider these to be
important and complicated issues. When companies don't understand Open
Source by legal letter and spirit they envision concepts that go against
Open Source interests.
> > > In our company we're thinking about how it would be, to give some of our
> > > daily work to volunteers of the 'midgardians', who can make this work
> > > for us (it's sure that we pay these volunteers :-) )
If you're still considering this, can you elaborate on what it is that
you're interested in. I may have misinterpreted the intent of your
inquiry.
I think it would be great to see more development being paid for by
distinct and seperate businesses for several reasons. I don't think Aurora
should bear all the responsibility for financing the development of
Midgard. They can't anyways because of outside OS developers who have done
%99 of the work on 1.4. Of course productivity will increase as we
begin the development of 2.0 because of Aurora's financial assistance. I
know there's at least a couple other developers who are interested in
working full-time on Midgard and additional financing would help that
cause.
IMO, there's a danger of having OS projects monopolized and controlled
when one company pays for all the development.
My own experience at Aurora has lead to a 180 degree turn in the focus of
documentation. It's distinctly possible that this is for the better. The
point is, I have little say over the type of documentation that I'll
write. What happens when Ami believes that a RDMS is the best backend for
2.0 but Aurora wants LDAP and the primary developers are working for
Aurora. I believe these concerns are well managed for the moment because
the right people are working on the project. However, I think it's niave
to believe that for profit efforts won't be tempted to push self
serving business strategies on OS projects.
Just so nobody gets the wrong impression, I am not saying that Aurora is
or will attempt to serve their interests at the expense of Midgard. My
example scenario concerning backends for 2.0 is nothing more than an
example and should not be interpreted as anything but an arugument for the
purpose of demonstration.
PEACE
Ron
> If you allow the employees to spend a certain ratio of their workday
> on Midgard, that would be a great way to sponsor development, if
> that's what you were referring to, Anatol.
>
> > However, I believe that there are not yet many Midgard
> > users in Asia. Of course, this could be a good opportunity
> > for evangelizing Midgard there.
> > Let me know if you're interested in arranging something
> > like this.
>
> Asia is a Big Whopping Place. I can't imagine doing a tour that
> crosses all of it (not without taking a sabattical year anyway :)
> Where you at? I haven't been to Asia much.
>
> Emile
>
>
>
> --
> This is The Midgard Project's mailing list. For more information,
> please visit the project's web site at http://www.midgard-project.org
>
> To unsubscribe the list, send an empty email message to address
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
This is The Midgard Project's mailing list. For more information,
please visit the project's web site at http://www.midgard-project.org
To unsubscribe the list, send an empty email message to address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
