Hi, I'm really happy with this discussion, so first of all I want to thank you all for the iniciative. The words from Jordi are like mine too: he's an strong believer of pure open-source projects and his company has already prove that in the OpenERP community. So everything I agree in everything he has said, including the way with the roles to be distinguished: members (users that are strongly involved in the project) and sponsors (companies or individuals that pay a fee).
Anyway I think we all approve the main purpose for this: prevent a "lockout" from one single vendor/company and its decissions and to allow the participants of the project to feel as much comfortable as possible. So, my questions: - Is there any roadmap with the tasks and milestones to accomplish the foundation? Do you already have any draft document? - Do you need any legal advice? We have an external lawyer that I'm sure could help. - And my last one, have you thought about any particular point regarding the local communities? I think at least some minimun rules can be set, and indeed the "heads" from them have to be represented in a particular way inside the foundation. Sorry for my English but I'm really tired after a long day :) Best regards. On 27 jun, 20:00, Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope it is okay that I respond to a posting a while back in the > discussion, but there were so many comments in the course of the debate > that I wasn't sure where to begin. > I have not really been using Tryton, only experimenting with it, but I > do have some potentially useful experiences from my former work in > not-for-profit, and of course in the Free Software community. > First, the question of representation: My former employer used an > Individual member ($125), Corporate member ($750) and Sustaining member > ($2000) structure. Figures just mentioned to indicate the proportions. > A Corporate member would have 4 representatives, a Sustaining member > would have 8. These representatives were allowed to participate in the > events and were treated like 8 Individual members were when it came to > influence. So an organisation would openly be represented by these > members, and this also acknowledged the contribution. > There were no problems with companies sponsoring individual memberships > for one. It did not actually have to be individuals in that respect, > just one-person-memberships. > > With a system as Tryton it would make no sense at all to exclude > companies. Noone would be more interested in the evolution of a system > like Tryton. > > As for the GPL plugins, I would assume the situation is similar to the > Wordpress discussion:http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ > The discussion of what constitutes a derivative or tied-in extension is > not particularly easy, but either way: It is only with distribution > that the code requires to go back. If you do consulting for a company > and extend their systems in-house, it would not have this requirement. > > Being under a wider umbrella with a wider-reaching foundation does not > make sense if the point is protecting the Tryton brand aspects. It does > make sense to set up a legal entity, however. And there is no problem > with partnering with other foundations for marketing and integration. > > Sincerely, > Morten > __ > Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér > [email protected] *www.syntaktisk.dk -- [email protected] mailing list
