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

[Peter Baumann]

On 08/16/2013 03:40 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
>>     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).

indeed, I believe this relatively young model (young in terms of getting 
considered a serious, not indecent model) is still being established and fleshed 
out in details. We are happy to contribute our experience, and likewise we are 
ready to learn ourselves.

>
>     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.

we do both, actually, - but there is a good catch in your sentence wrt the 
company page phrasing, I have improved on that one now.

>
>>     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.

that was quite a learning curve; meantime we like to think that we handle this 
in a quite efficient, yet transparent manner. In any case, the commit logs 
clearly show that there is an equal route for anybody (actually, you can find 
some of our patches rejected as well, failing to adhere to the codeguide, for 
example).

-Peter


>
> 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

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
  - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
    www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
    mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
    tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
  - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
    www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
    tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20130818/1095aa34/attachment.html>