[Incubator] [rasdaman-dev] dual license model clarification

[Jody Garnett]

>
> I was able to follow the Features page reasonably well, but since the text
> is describing "company" policy, and I suppose a company product, perhaps it
> belongs on the company website?
>
> interesting idea. I wanted to have a maximum of transparency, and a
> minimum of links to the commercial site,  moving the feature list would
> require such a link, given the understandable interest of the community: "I
> have heard about this feature, is it community or enterprise?" So I felt
> this is the most open, accessible way of dealing with it.
>

It is up to you and your community how you want to balance.  If you watch
the OSGeo board mailing list you can see the IRS has been getting stuck
over exactly this kind of balance between open source (for the public good)
and open source (product/user license agreement, or vendor / customer
contract).

If moving the feature matrix is requested by mentor and OSGeo, we would do
> it with a corresponding hint, so I am curious about opinions.
>

I am curious as well, most other projects I have seen have one section
pointing off to commercial support and products. But often it is the other
way commercial and product websites pointing out the open source components
they use.

The other thing to consider is when the community creates functionality
> that is not needed in a commercial bundle. Perhaps it does not meet QA,
> documentation, or operational standards? Or simply does not solve a problem
> of interest to your customers.
>
>
> hm, we gladly accept contributions, but only if the meet QA we have
> established in the open-source project. I would not want to give up what we
> have achieved in terms of quality.
> It's also a matter of keeping things simple I believe.
>

Yep, that is half the battle of incubation - documenting what hoops people
have to jump through to contribute to the project. And then being fair and
making sure your existing contributors jumps through the same hoops.

So I repeat OSGeo Incubation is not supposed to change how your project
does business, it is supposed to document how your project does business.
Things such as Benevolent Dictator model are usually caught during
application.

Note: the hoops need to be open to "outside" involvement. We are trying to
avoid the situation JUMP found itself in, where although it was an open
source project it was "pay to play" (you would need to hire staff time to
review your patch).  That does not mean everything is cost-free
- GeoNetwork for example sorted out most of their development roadmap in
person at a gathering organised by the key stakeholers. So while anyone
could attend, they would need sort out their own travel. I think OSSIM was
also replying on in person breakfast meetings, and I get the impression a
lot of gvSIG decision making happens at their conferences.

Jody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20130816/c180b27f/attachment.html>