Matthew Miller
The Redis thing underscores a key point: _open source is not enough_. We need _community built software_ -- free and open source licenses are just one aspect of that.
If a company requires you to assign copyright (or equivalent re-licensing rights) in an asymmetrical way, they will inevitably eventually decide to take that option once they want to cash in on the goodwill you've built for them (let alone the code).
Shane Curcuru
Sure, but I find "four levels of open" a simple and easy way to explain to newcomers why just the license isn't enough; the word 'open' is already overloaded so π€·
And it's *possible* that for-profits can manage trademarks for the greater good - it's just much less likely to work well over time. There are few assurances, even with public charity governance restrictions in tax law, but they certainly help greatly.
Shane Curcuru
Iceweasel has zero to do with the ASF, so not a useful example.
"Open brands" is not the perfect word, I agree, since "open" really can't apply to trademarks (well, at least not for long!). But "Open" hints at brand governance for the community itself, not for a single for-profit corporation.
Is there a bigger argument, or just terminology here?
Trademarks can't really be open the same way code is, but they can be managed for the public good, not for profit.
Matthew Miller
> Trademarks can't really be open the same way code is, but they can be managed for the public good, not for profit.
That's exactly my point. I don't think that's related to openness _per se_.
Also, I think that it is possible for entities other than non-profit to mange trademarks in this way.
Shane Curcuru
How so? Or rather: what are you getting at, since I'm not following.
Reference: https://apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility
Matthew Miller
It's not *bad* β it's just not _open_.
https://apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
(See also the "iceweasel" thing.)
Matthew Miller
"Apache" is another prominent example of non-open trademark control by a non-profit foundation.
Matthew Miller
Also: "adds contributors to become maintainers" doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain what that means and how it relates to governance?
And: a nonprofit foundation could own a brand and use and license it in a non-open way (and indeed, this is common β see Mozilla and LibreOffice). Conversely, a for-profit corporation or government entity could own a brand but have some form of open licensing or governance.
Shane Curcuru
Indeed, there are four levels of open:
- Open source - under an OSI license
- Open community - may accept contributions
- Open governance - adds contributors to become maintainers
- Open brand - trademark is owned by a nonprofit foundation
Matthew Miller
I'm not really fond of that list.
Particularly:
* I don't think these are "levels", but rather some (but not all) aspects of openness.
* I don't see how "may accept contributions" relates to "open community" β I mean, they seem unrelated, not just a framing I would put differently
Shane Curcuru
ASF Model: contributors become committers. Committers can get elected to PMC, which then gives them a vote in governance over releases and future committers on that project. I.e. a project that includes new contributors in actual governance. "Maintainers" is an overloaded word, for sure.
And yes: nonprofits can be evil just like for-profits; however it tends in some ways to be harder, since they're not exposed to as many "chase the money" ideas as for-profit usually is.
Santa Claes πΈπͺππ°π
@mattdm Who gets to be a maintainer has everything to do with governance. From the C4 governance specification:
> A βContributorβ is a person who wishes to provide a patch, being a set of commits that solve some clearly identified problem.
[ . . . ]
Shane Curcuru
Anyone have a list of the many definitions of "maintainer"?
Is there any better place to start looking than here?
Matthew Miller
And I don't think all upstream projects use that exact definition consistently.
Santa Claes πΈπͺππ°π
@mattdm @shanecurcuru Oh right. Yes.
Maintainer in an upstream project and package maintainer in a distro are two very different roles.
Matthew Miller
Thanks β it makes sense using those definitions. (It isn't the definitions we use in Fedora.)
Santa Claes πΈπͺππ°π
witchescauldron
@clacke @mattdm The is a lot of stuff spread around the web, you can find a home here https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki this needs someone to do a nicely formatted page, or for a more messy look just click on the hashtag #4opens
witchescauldron
Santa Claes πΈπͺππ°π
@witchescauldron Where is that documented?
Chirp! is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Chirp! content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.