[gdal-dev] Fwd: Driver maintenance - long-term solution ?

[Andrew C Aitchison]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Paul Harwood wrote:

> oops - forgot to reply-all :(
>
> Just to add one example though. I am sure you will find that all FAANGs
> have "modern slavery" regulations that mean that anyone they pay has to
> able to prove that they are not exploiting workers. I would hope that you
> would agree that they SHOULD have modern slavery regulations.
>
> How exactly does open-source software prove that? I am sure there are
> established mechanisms but do you know them ... ?

Is it true ?
I mean open source developers *are* being exploited at the moment.

Hmm. That means these companies are exploiting us.
How do we talk to their modern slavery auditors ?


> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Paul Harwood <runette at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 09:15
> Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] Driver maintenance - long-term solution ?
> To: Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>
>
>
>
>
> One of the really broken things is that big companies seem to have a
>> hard time making a donation to an open source project.  Yet they can pay
>> for proprietary software licenses with no effort.  So I wonder if
>> selling some kind of "gold support contract", would be viable, where all
>> that they get is to put the gold label on issues on the tracker, but
>> then it's a "support contract" and thus easy like a license, vs a
>> "donation".
>>
>> I don't buy the notion that Sarbanes-Oxley makes this hard.  I think
>> that's just an excuse, based on my experience.
>>
>> IANAL
>
> I don't think it matters whether it is really SOX or just the way these
> companies have implemented SOX, the fact is that the risk management
> process that came out of it make it a lot of work for the individuals in
> those companies to make this type of payment. That is not a justification
> for anything, but we should recognise that the individual in those
> companies who wants to support us is not going to get an easy life!
>
> You can see from the lawyers and accountants point of view that a product
> with a scope of work, a PO and an invoice is a much easier paper trail to
> follow than a donation. It is difficult to prove that a donation is not
> patronage. In some countries (possibly most, I don't know) you cannot call
> it charity even if it is not-for-profit because you get something back -
> the software. You cannot be seen to get any material return from an
> organisation you make a charitable donation to. So it is a gratis payment
> for no services to an organization that also just happens to provide you
> software for free. Say that to lawyer and they will probably ask you
> exactly how you are different from the mafia :)
>
> I am not saying that it is not possible - I am sure there are very good
> ways to do this. I am just saying that you have to acknowledge it is hard.
> You cannot just tell them they are wrong and that they should just give out
> some money. Most of the people you are talking to will probably agree with
> you but also forget you in about 5 minutes and go and do something that is
> possible.
>

-- 
Andrew C. Aitchison					Kendal, UK
 			andrew at aitchison.me.uk