Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Jim Gettys wrote: > Fedora is still a Red Hat trademark. > > That leaves Red Hat at least somewhat legally responsible. > > The CLA has caused serious heartburn for some (e.g. Bert Freudenburg) > and I've been on his side in that (because the issues he sees could have > applied to me in previous years). RH/Fedora is revising the CLA now; > I've seen a copy, but the copy I saw still had some of these issues from > where I sit (I sent a lengthy reply to the RH lawyer working on it). > > For certain people, it is *very* off-putting > > All the projects I've been involved with have not had such agreements: > Gnome, X.org Foundation (as opposed to some of its predecessors), etc. It's all a matter of perceived risk, and mitigation strategies for those risks. The risk to Red Hat of seeing the Fedora trademark abused is very expensive. The legal risk to Red Hat of someone putting "stolen" code into Fedora is very expensive. The risks for a smaller project, with frankly no money to speak of, are less. Not nothing, but less. /me wonders if someone shouldn't be asking the friendly folks at the SFLC for a bit of advice. --g ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
Fedora is still a Red Hat trademark. That leaves Red Hat at least somewhat legally responsible. The CLA has caused serious heartburn for some (e.g. Bert Freudenburg) and I've been on his side in that (because the issues he sees could have applied to me in previous years). RH/Fedora is revising the CLA now; I've seen a copy, but the copy I saw still had some of these issues from where I sit (I sent a lengthy reply to the RH lawyer working on it). For certain people, it is *very* off-putting All the projects I've been involved with have not had such agreements: Gnome, X.org Foundation (as opposed to some of its predecessors), etc. - Jim On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 20:43 -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > > I'm struck by the disconnect between Greg's advice of "let anyone who > > says they want to be a member be a member" and this new "let anyone who > > enters into a legal agreement with us be a member"; my intuition sides > > on the relaxed side of the continuum. > > On the other hand, isn't this exactly what Fedora does? But rather > than go around in circles, let's ask the SFC for their input/advice. > > -walter > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One Laptop Per Child ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
Chris Ball wrote: >> Most project have some sort of agreement. > > Citation? Many of the largest free software projects in existence > have no such thing -- GNOME, Ubuntu, the Linux kernel -- and each > has widespread ties with all kinds of businesses. Ubuntu has the Code of Conduit, which you must sign with your PGP key to become a Ubuntero: https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct/1.0.1 This is not to say we should imitate them, although the UCoC is the most reasonable agreement I've ever seen, as it doesn't even *try* to look like the legal nonsense I've seen elsewhere. Healthy communities and volunteer-driven organizations are based on personal trust and not on prosecution of those who breach legal agreements. Beware of those who tell you otherwise: they might be lawyers in disguise! That said, I wouldn't mind if we had a wiki page with something similar to the UCoC and we asked members to *informally* agree to it in a non legally binding way. -- \___/ Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ _| X | Sugar Labs Team - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ \|_O_| "It's an education project, not a laptop project!" ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 01:33 +0100, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:06:12PM -0500, David Farning wrote: > > > > What's the Individual Contributor Agreement, and why would we want one > > > > of those? Communities should wait until they get large before they > > > > start instituting bureaucracy that turns their potential new members > > > > away.. > > > > Most project have some sort of agreement. > > Citation? Many of the largest free software projects in existence > have no such thing -- GNOME, Ubuntu, the Linux kernel -- and each > has widespread ties with all kinds of businesses. > Fedora - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA Ubuntu - http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct Apache - http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas > > Sometime they are as simple as 'I am who I say I am and have the right > > to contribute what I will contribute. > > > > One of my goals is for a vibrant ecosystem of businesses, NFPs and NGOs > > to form around Sugar. If a contributor agree makes them more > > comfortable, it will be worth the head aches. > > I still think this is not a good idea. I'm not sure what it's gaining > us -- are you saying we'd refuse code from people who are unwilling to > sign such an agreement? If the intent is to prove something about our > codebase, then what about the code that's written before the agreement > comes into existence? What happens when OLPC merges some donated code > but the Sugar Labs rules demand an agreement for it? > > I'm struck by the disconnect between Greg's advice of "let anyone who > says they want to be a member be a member" and this new "let anyone who > enters into a legal agreement with us be a member"; my intuition sides > on the relaxed side of the continuum. > Signing the CLA is part of Fedora's "let anyone who says they want to be a member be a member" process. I recognize your unease at the added paperwork. On this one, we are going to have to see what the Oversight board decides based on the advice of SFC. thanks david ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
> I'm struck by the disconnect between Greg's advice of "let anyone who > says they want to be a member be a member" and this new "let anyone who > enters into a legal agreement with us be a member"; my intuition sides > on the relaxed side of the continuum. On the other hand, isn't this exactly what Fedora does? But rather than go around in circles, let's ask the SFC for their input/advice. -walter ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
Hi, On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:06:12PM -0500, David Farning wrote: > > > What's the Individual Contributor Agreement, and why would we want one > > > of those? Communities should wait until they get large before they > > > start instituting bureaucracy that turns their potential new members > > > away.. > > Most project have some sort of agreement. Citation? Many of the largest free software projects in existence have no such thing -- GNOME, Ubuntu, the Linux kernel -- and each has widespread ties with all kinds of businesses. > Sometime they are as simple as 'I am who I say I am and have the right > to contribute what I will contribute. > > One of my goals is for a vibrant ecosystem of businesses, NFPs and NGOs > to form around Sugar. If a contributor agree makes them more > comfortable, it will be worth the head aches. I still think this is not a good idea. I'm not sure what it's gaining us -- are you saying we'd refuse code from people who are unwilling to sign such an agreement? If the intent is to prove something about our codebase, then what about the code that's written before the agreement comes into existence? What happens when OLPC merges some donated code but the Sugar Labs rules demand an agreement for it? I'm struck by the disconnect between Greg's advice of "let anyone who says they want to be a member be a member" and this new "let anyone who enters into a legal agreement with us be a member"; my intuition sides on the relaxed side of the continuum. - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 01:10 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:38:45PM -0500, David Farning wrote: > >> An Individual member is someone who has made a significant and sustained > >> contribution to the Sugar Labs ecosystem -- of any type -- and who has > >> explicitly agreed to the Individual Contributor Agreement. > > > > What's the Individual Contributor Agreement, and why would we want one > > of those? Communities should wait until they get large before they > > start instituting bureaucracy that turns their potential new members > > away.. > > I agree with Chris here. This is something that we have to run by the software freedom conservancy. Most project have some sort of agreement. Sometime they are as simple as 'I am who I say I am and have the right to contribute what I will contribute. One of my goals is for a vibrant ecosystem of businesses, NFPs and NGOs to form around Sugar. If a contributor agree makes them more comfortable, it will be worth the head aches. Designing a community seems to be a lot like designing a piece of software. If one plans ahead, it is pretty easy to add, remove, and modify features. Adding features, especially security features, can be tough. If the SFC thinks it is not necessary, we can drop it. thanks dfarning ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:38:45PM -0500, David Farning wrote: >> An Individual member is someone who has made a significant and sustained >> contribution to the Sugar Labs ecosystem -- of any type -- and who has >> explicitly agreed to the Individual Contributor Agreement. > > What's the Individual Contributor Agreement, and why would we want one > of those? Communities should wait until they get large before they > start instituting bureaucracy that turns their potential new members > away.. I agree with Chris here. Marco ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
Hi, On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:38:45PM -0500, David Farning wrote: > An Individual member is someone who has made a significant and sustained > contribution to the Sugar Labs ecosystem -- of any type -- and who has > explicitly agreed to the Individual Contributor Agreement. What's the Individual Contributor Agreement, and why would we want one of those? Communities should wait until they get large before they start instituting bureaucracy that turns their potential new members away.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
> Although it is difficult to specify a precise definition [snipped] This creates ambiguity. If it doesn't add to the process, I suggest we remove it altogether. Sameer -- Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Information Systems San Francisco State University San Francisco CA 94132 USA http://verma.sfsu.edu/ http://opensource.sfsu.edu/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Sugar Labs Individual Membership
Here is a draft of the Individual Membership Guideline base on the feedback received over the last few days. Dfarning --- An Individual member is someone who has made a significant and sustained contribution to the Sugar Labs ecosystem -- of any type -- and who has explicitly agreed to the Individual Contributor Agreement. Although it is difficult to specify a precise definition, a contributor generally must have contributed in a non-trivial manner to the growth and improvement of Sugar Labs. Contributions may include but are not limited to: Coding, Testing, Documenting, and Translating a Sugar Labs project; Supporting and Maintaining the Sugar Labs infrastructure; Fostering the Sugar Labs community; and Supporting and Maintaining a Sugar deployment. Individual Membership eligibility is based an individuals contributions. Contributions made in the course of employment will be ascribed to the individual contributor. Anybody who is active in Sugar Labs is a good candidate for Sugar Labs membership. Membership lasts for two years, and is renewable. Anyone who feels they are qualified and wishes to become an Member should visit the Membership page on the wiki and follow the instructions detailed there. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
