Anyone have a list of the many definitions of "maintainer"?

Is there any better place to start looking than here?

https://fossgovernance.org/

@mattdm @clacke

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.

@mattdm

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

@mattdm

How so? Or rather: what are you getting at, since I'm not following.

Reference: https://apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility

@mattdm

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.

@mattdm

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 🤷

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.

@mattdm