Document Actions

First open door session

by Joel Burton — last modified September 13, 2004 - 23:52

First open door session for the Plone Foundation. These meetings were intended to hear concerns and answer questions about the formation of the Plone Foundation.

Channel: #plone-fdn

Date/Time: 2004/05/28 09:00:00 GMT-5

Moderators: Joel Burton, Paul Everitt

zopepaul: so, howdy all
zopepaul: as joel said, this is one of several chats to, errrm, improve the way this foundation thing is launching 
zopepaul: as we have discovered:
zopepaul: secrecy + hurry = pain
jok2: oops, i remembered 14:00 CEST
zopepaul: so, we don't need secrecy now
zopepaul: we don't have to hurry too much
whit537 [~whit537@whitacre3.dsl.telerama.com] entered the room.
whit537: hey all
zopepaul: instead, we wanna try and gauge the "general will" for getting this foundation rolling
jhauser (~jhauser@pD9E3D33F.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #plone-fdn
joelburton: plus, we're here to answer any questions we can about what's happened so far
whit537: i have a question
whit537: when CA says "we are dedicating people to plone"
whit537: what do they mean?
zopepaul: good question
whit537: i mean, are they gonna have 10 full-time plone developers?
zopepaul: IMO, things like that are still in motion
whit537: or some guy who does it in his spare time?
whit537: just wondering if we knew what the case was so far
zopepaul: i don't think we'll know for another week
whit537: have we met their developers?
zopepaul: alan has
whit537: cool
joelburton: as paul said, whit537, we don't know. but given that they hope to use plone in one of their key products, we should assume they'll make some real effort.
jok2: Paul, anything new about the contributor agreement?
Suresh (~sbabu@203.195.223.18) has joined #plone-fdn
zopepaul: whit537: to close that question, we don't yet know
zopepaul: but, your email was truly cool, tks for sending it
whit537: ok
zopepaul: (my guess is they're too busy right now to read mail) :)
whit537: :)
zopepaul: jok2: some news
whit537: heh
zopepaul: but nothing conclusive
zopepaul: we talked at dinner the other night
whit537: ok, we'll wait and see
zopepaul: joel, mark murphy, alan, me, murray and gerard
zopepaul: joel: wanna take this one, or did you come in too late to hear the recap?
joelburton: no, i'll take it
joelburton: essentially, the foundation definitely heard the message that people had concerns about the contrib agreement.
joelburton: if you recall, i was a pretty loud voice in raising that point ;)
zopepaul: hadn't noticed :)
joelburton: we talked w/the lawyer about "what would it mean for us to use a copyright usage model, where the contrib gives the foundation rights, rather than assigning all ip interests"
joelburton: he wasn't certain, and we're still trying to find out from him
joelburton: in addition, geoffd has opened a dialogue with the free software foundation to see if they can offer any advice on how we could structure that
joelburton: so, no hard-and-fast news, but we're gathering information about what's possible so we can re-open that conversation.
zopepaul: we all agreed that ASF doesn't do assignment->grant-back, as previously claimed
zopepaul: we basically have (IMO) two tensions here:
joelburton: right. that was our mistake. we represented the offered agreement as apache-like, when it wasn't. we should have checked that.
zopepaul: 1) the group that wants to allow relicensing, vs. not
zopepaul: 2) the group that wants to continue GPL, vs. not
zopepaul: (w/ some relation b/w the two)
zopepaul: not *our* mistake, *my* mistake
joelburton: i'd clarify #2 as "people that want to continue w/GPL versus non-GPL or dual-licensed"
zopepaul: good point
joelburton: does that answer your question about where the contrib agreement stands, jok2?
jok2: yes
hazmat: hiya folks
joelburton: good question. others?
joelburton: hi, kapil. thanks for coming.
zopepaul: has a call, brb
hazmat: hi joel, the times in the email were a bit confusing, but i thought i'd just monitor the channel.
joelburton: sorry. i'm a hopeless american when it comes to international time conversions.
joelburton: from now on, i'll only plan chats for people in new york city ;)
joelburton: other questions about where things are/have been?
hazmat: you can save yourself the trouble and just plan them for folks in dc ;-)
joelburton: hee hee
hazmat: what does apache do?
T|ran (~TiranNimv@nathan.faho.RWTH-Aachen.DE) has joined #plone-fdn
joelburton: under apache model, you give foundation rights to do whatever they want with your code, but you retain all rights and ip ownership
hazmat: ah
hazmat: you give them free license but you retain ip
tesdal (~tesdal@sparkit.easynet.no) has joined #plone-fdn
joelburton: correct
hazmat: that sounds much nicer
T|ran: IP = intellectual property?
hazmat: yes
hazmat: except when we have disconnect errors ;-)
joelburton: speaking just as myself, that's what i'd like to see for the plone foundation, but, obviously, i'm not a lawyer, and there may be problems following the exact apache model, given that we're under gpl, and they were under a bsd-ish license.
T|ran: AFAIK it doesn't work in europe
hazmat: joelburton, i don't see what that has todo with it to be honest.
T|ran: At least some europeans were talking about the IP problem on the foundation list
joelburton: nor do i exactly, hazmat. i'm just parroting what lawyers have said.
mustard (~felix@82-70-45-190.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk) has joined #plone-fdn
hazmat: lawyers are human too, and few of them agree on anything.. part of the reason why their lawyers ;-)
jhauser: are there plans for the process of the further technical development?
joelburton: yes, t|ran. we've heard about confusions about ip-transfer in several european countries. the first legal advice we received was that, since the contract was written in us, it could do ip transfer. but now we're trying to find out (a) if that's even neccessary--ie, cant we use a shared model, or (b) if that's correct
hazmat: i've had to have long discussions with alan's ip lawyer clearing up basic misconceptions about the gpl and freesoftware, it was annoying and time consuming... sorry i digress.
T|ran: One plan is to increase the amount of release managers
joelburton: jhauser, good question.
joelburton: no definite plans have been made.
hazmat: are there any board members here?
T|ran: oh no?
joelburton: the board will decide, with the membership, what the organizations exact plan for the first year is, and that hasn't been entirely hashed out
joelburton: but most conversations have focused around increased visibility, marketing, and legal protection (registering of trademarks, etc.). it's likely that the foundation won't be able to fund much development initially.
jhauser: it's more about descicion making
joelburton: as far as i know, there are no board members here. neither paul nor i are on the board.
jhauser: that's a little bit surprising :-)
hazmat: okay so how many foundation members here?
joelburton: paul has been named director. i'm just volunteering to help out.
hazmat: i just want to try to get sense of whose part of the general community
joelburton: at this point, there are no foundation members. the foundation intends for membership to be a meritocracy, based on contributions (code, marketing, community work, etc.) to plone, but haven't made the exact policies on what that menas.
joelburton: ... means
joelburton: membership is one of the first things that foundation intends to answer.
jhauser: I'm a lurker hazmat
hazmat: umm.. then whats the purpose of this meeting? do you guys have information? or is there more about community dissemnitation of general foundation stuff and taking pulses?
T|ran: joelburton: yeah meritocracy is the best model for us I can think of. You only have to explain the word
joelburton: paul and i were at CAworld, so we felt we could answer any questions about what went down there, or that we learned from CA. we have also been involved in this discussion since early on, so can answer how-why questions.
joelburton: so, the goal of this chat is to be available to answer any questions. we're trying to take some of the time pressure off the board so they can get what they have to get done. they're volunteers, too.
:=-= hazmat has changed the topic to Plone Foundation (http://plone.org/foundation) - Answering questions about the foundation, plone, and the community
joelburton: in my mind, meritocracy would mean that a serious code developer, like hazmat, would be a member. a documenter/community organizer, like me, would be a member. someone who heads a company that gives good visibility to the foundation (like scott paley of abstract edge) would be a member, etc.
joelburton: people that just use plone at home or are playing with it would probably not. we'd want to make the foundation visible to them but they probably wouldn't play a role in it
hazmat: joelburton, value is in the eye of the beholder, how is value decided
joelburton: but, again, this is my thinking, not the official policy.
T|ran: hazmat: THAT's the big point
joelburton: good question, hazmat, and i don't think there's been any attempt yet by the board to define that.
T|ran: You can measure the work in code lines
hazmat: T|ran, there can't be objective measures
joelburton: i'd hope that the board would make ask for some advice from the community with respect to that point.
joelburton: after all, we all benefit by getting the valuable members.
hazmat: T|ran, it has to be a subjective measure to take in to account things like scott paley's work at conferences (which i personally find to be of marginal value) but which others might think is quite important and valuable.
joelburton: i think we generally agree that we'd like a meritocracy. let's agree to stay involved in how that gets defined.
T|ran: So we have to introduce a voting mechanism
hazmat: yes
hazmat: and the existing folks can do bootstrap
joelburton: that's a pretty likely way in my guess, t|ran.
hazmat: so no questions about eggs.
joelburton: ?
hazmat: chicken and egg about voters
T|ran: Q 1: Who votes? Only the board? Or the members? or both
joelburton: ahh.
oferw (oferw@bzq-218-91-58.red.bezeqint.net) has joined #plone-fdn
T|ran: and Q2: How is allowed to become a board member? Only members or all people from the community?
joelburton: t|ran: the board has the absolute say in the organization. that's what boards generally do. however, so far, this board has signalled that they'd like to have a member-centric organization. that probably means the board would be elected with input from membership, and let the policies be decided by membership.
hazmat: zopepaul, joelburton btw. i've been doing some jabber work recently, they have separate application process for jsf membership, it might be interesting to look at the form
joelburton: but right now, since there's no formal membership, the board is steering.
joelburton: interesting, hazmat. if you have a link handy, can you email joel@joelburton.com?
zopepaul: and me too :)
jok2: at the snow sprint, there was a survey, what people would expect from a plone foundation. Perhaps that could be asked a wider audience.
joelburton: t|ran: there's no restriction, afaik, about who could become a board member, but, obviously, they'd have to be elected by the board using whatever mechanism the board decides on.
joelburton: that's a good suggestion, jok2. one of the reasons for these sessions is to get a sense of what people think/want, and that's another good way to do so.
hazmat: zopepaul, joelburton sure, additionally jsf memberships come up at set intervals its not an open time throughout the year
hazmat: joelburton, whoa.. shouldn't board members be elected by foundation members?
T|ran: hazmat: My opinion, too
hazmat: hmm..
zopepaul: back
hazmat: i'm not sure
hazmat: it might involve too much churn
joelburton: jok2: would you follow up w/paul and i about that? we'd need some help in getting out a feeler-survey about what the foundation could do.
oferw: what is the difffrence between board member and foundation member?
zopepaul: oferw: the board will be focused on administration
zopepaul: not technical policy
joelburton: hazmat: as it stands now, the board is elected by the board. that's not uncommon in organizations. but, of course, we have no membership now, so that's probably the way it has to be until we do. there's been no decisions about future polciies involving membership. i think we're going to have to hold on tight a little while for that.
zopepaul: the scope of the board should be narrow and operations-oriented
jok2: joelburton: ok, but include jodok batlogg, as he probably has the survey from the sprint
T|ran: On the other hand we *must* take care that we don't start a nepotism
zopepaul: T|ran: yes, +1
zopepaul: i sent a note to the board yesterday to add it to today's phone agenda :)
tesdal: if board selects board what should members do
joelburton: right. the whole point of the board is just to operate the organization. the intent is that the "ownership" of plone, with regard to planning the marketing, making decisions, etc., be with the membership.
hazmat: whats to prevent folks from electing ca off the board?
joelburton: afaik, nothing, hazmat.
[ later note by joelburton, 13-Sep-2004: This is no longer true; in September, 2004, CA was given two reserved seats pursuant to a bylaw change. Details at "http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/special_seats":http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/special_seats ]

joelburton: but i think it's helpful to recognize CA as, potentially, a very valuable member of the community.
hazmat: except if board members are self selecting it wouldn't happen.
joelburton: they'll have some growing pains, of course, but they could do wonders for our community, too
hazmat: definitely
joelburton: well, the board can vote someone off the board just as easily as the membership.
hazmat: i just wanted to clear up that no seat is protected/purchased by convention.
joelburton: keep in mind that the fdn board is mostly made up of people form our community (alan, alex, matt, geoffd, etc.)
T|ran: joelburton: the boot strap board
hazmat: so the board will decide the initial makeup of the foundation
joelburton: no seat is protected, no. of course, if we kicked off the seats from our corporate partner, that might send messages that might make it hard to get another corporate partnership deal. so, let's hope things like that are considered.
hazmat: the unelected board shouldn't elect the elected board imo.
joelburton: right, this is the formation board. there will be a real board of directors elected by them.
joelburton: that's quite a sentence, hazmat ;)
hazmat: its a powerful concept ;-)
hazmat: quite tongue friendly in a twisty sort of way
zopepaul: obviously, this is going to be hard to herd all the Plone cats in a specific direction
zopepaul: the danger is that analysis paralysis lands
zopepaul: thus, we all have to be a bit flexible, patient, and forgiving about the process :)
joelburton: i think we'll have to close that for now by saying what we know, which is: the board hasn't made the policies about membership yet, so i can't tell you anything specific, *but* i certainly hope that the board would include the membership in things like board composition. that could take several forms.
joelburton: right.
hazmat: zopepaul, ok, but we need to be clear about how the process gets decided
hazmat: ie. if there's a dispute whats the course for resolution
joelburton: dispute wrt what, hazmat?
zopepaul: hazmat: so far, this is the process:
hazmat: joelburton, anything
zopepaul: 1) for bootstrapping, a bootstrapping board was assembled, mostly by fiat of limi/alan
zopepaul: 2) a bootstrapping membership was based on anybody that checked into CMFPlone
zopepaul: those rules are far from perfect
zopepaul: thus, they aren't the permanent course
zopepaul: presumably, these two groups are where the buck stops on launching the real process
joelburton: it's might help to understand that, in order to gain CA's partnership (which the initial board felt was valuable), we had to move quickly, and with some secrecy. so, don't judge the future process by the artificial limitations on the past process.
zopepaul: indeed
joelburton: with regard to disputes, hazmat, i think alan mentioned something about Core Wars. ;)
joelburton: obviously, how membership is decided and how the board is selected are key questions for people here.
joelburton: are there other questions?
zopepaul: let's open up the microphone to other question
zopepaul: heheh
joelburton: great minds moderate alike
zopepaul: my mind doesn't even operate :)
hazmat: joelburton, thats what i want to avoid by having the process known from the start
joelburton: hazmat: i agree with you, the sooner it's known, the better.
zopepaul: hazmat: by definition, there is no process at the start
hazmat: i was thinking board elections are final
zopepaul: we are at the point now of soliciting constructive input
zopepaul: patient, flexible, forgiving, constructive input :)
hazmat: i see i'm not needed here ;-)
zopepaul: heheh
zopepaul: depends on how many days you've gone w/out sleep :)
joelburton: it's not unlikely, hazmat, that the board will ask for things like committees to provide recommendations for these sorts of things, hazmat. i'd suggest you volunteer on a membership/policy committee.
hazmat: pleads the fifth
joelburton: erk. that was badly worded. but you understand what i mean.
jhauser: if I may give this input
jhauser: I'm missing the vision and base ideas, where this should lead to
zopepaul: i think the FAQ explains this?
hazmat: as in? whats the point of the foudation or what we're discussing
zopepaul: if not, it should :)
hazmat: jhauser, define 'this' pls
jhauser: no, that's describing what the foundation wants to do
jhauser: not where it would like to lead the community
hazmat: doh..
hazmat: nm
zopepaul: errr, how about: "Brazil"
zopepaul: :)
zopepaul: jhauser: this is a tough one
joelburton: the foundation hopes to keep community level by protecting our assets (trademarks, codebase, etc.), and enhancing their value (by making plone much more visible and credible)
joelburton: so, hopefully, leading the community to a bigger and better plone.
zopepaul: i think we have to earn some moral authority first, before trying to chart such a course
hazmat: joelburton, promoting and protecting don't do much by way of leading
zopepaul: hazmat: part of "protect" includes a stable decision-making process
joelburton: right, zopepaul. the foundation only has the authority that the community grants it.
zopepaul: jhauser: did you mean the direction of the community, or the direction of Plone-the-Product?
joelburton: and part of the protect also includes, hazmat, trying to retain the meritocracy-focused community-oriented vibe.
jok2: hazmat: you definitely could be patient, flexible, forgiving, at least you were at the last evening of the sprint. constructive input was a little bit behind these other characteristics :-)
hazmat: pleads the fifth
zopepaul: hazmat: you going to OSCON?
joelburton: the last evening of the sprint, hazmat was rambunctious and drunk. ;) i remember... vaguely ... ;)
oferw: can you please say few words about plone license and what is going to change
zopepaul: oferw: not really :)
zopepaul: there isn't a planned change
zopepaul: there *might* be
zopepaul: but right now, the status quo is in effect
hazmat: zopepaul, wasn't planning on it, its an expensive conf if your not talking
zopepaul: hazmat: how bout the vancouver plone thing right after?
zopepaul: my point is, perhaps we could schedule the Plone Foundation Boostrapping Roadshow, with appearances in Sweden, Portland, Vancouver, etc.
joelburton: woo hoo
jok2: vienna
T|ran: and paul is dancing
T|ran: :p
zopepaul: jok2: yep, vienna!
hazmat: vienna will likely be my next community event.
zopepaul: good choice
T|ran: hazmat: Plone?
:|<-- _zwark__ has left freenode (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
zopepaul: hopefully that's outside of peak travel rates season
joelburton: oferw: re: the licenses, one point we should definitely clear up, if any questions, remain, was that the interview in eweek about licenses was simply inaccurate. _nothing_ has been decided on this front.
hazmat: T|ran opensource in general
zopepaul: +1000
zopepaul: oferw: geoffd wants us to step back and write the requirements, so to speak
zopepaul: decide what we are trying to accomplish
zopepaul: then pick the technique to do it
joelburton: then write test cases to make sure it works
zopepaul: and a bugzilla to...
T|ran: hazmat: the next plone meeting will be in vienna
joelburton: hands zopepaul a copy of PloneCollectorNG
zopepaul: ok, i have to listen in on a board call in 4 min
hazmat: T|ran, you mean the next plone meeting after vancouver ?
zopepaul: i'll stay in here while they are yapping :)
hazmat: or the next one your going to, or the next one in europe ;-)
joelburton: any other questions?
T|ran: hazmat: maybe :) I don't know when vancouver is but the plone conference will be end of sep
jhauser: do you think the community response was sufficient?
joelburton: vancouver is in late july, right after oscon.
vinsci: I assume CA is still talking about licensing to someone? It would be good if these discussions were public, to end the veil of secrecy around the foundation for good
joelburton: two questions here.
joelburton: jhauser: can you clarify what you mean?
joelburton: (vinsci, let me get to yours right after jhauser's questions)
jhauser: there was not much discussion on the lists I have read
jhauser: the people here are more the involved people
joelburton: ah. well, we tried this announcement as a two-stage announcement. CA, like most companies, wants to make a big splash with their press and their conferences.
jok2: i think most discussion happened on #plone
joelburton: so they wanted one announcement, at their conference.
jhauser: I haven't seen how other companies are handling this
jhauser: how they react
joelburton: we wanted to introduce the idea to the entire communities in advance, which is why we had the rather quiet announcement last friday, followed by the joint CA-plone foundation announcement on monday.
jhauser: zopepaul mentioned some phone calls :-)
joelburton: there has been at least some contact by media interested in angles on open source cms's (good!)
jhauser: so you think it was sufficient
joelburton: not sure how the other plone-and-plone-related companies have handled this.
joelburton: honestly, jhauser, i was hoping the foundation would get a bit more attention. but i think we did well. we have dozens of press clippings with our name in it, and positive quotes from a fortune 500 company, etc.
HammerToe (~HammerToe@uberdark.netsight.co.uk) has joined #plone-fdn
joelburton: plus, we have a marketing communications company seriously considering donating some marketing $ to plone, and their enthusiasm for this came out of the plone fdn announcement excitement.
joelburton: so, i think we got what we wanted, more or less.
joelburton: hi, hammertoe.
jhauser: ok
joelburton: jhauser: that answer your question?
jhauser: yes
:HammerToe yo
joelburton: ok, on to:
joelburton: (03:09:32) vinsci: I assume CA is still talking about licensing to someone? It would be good if these discussions were public, to end the veil of secrecy around the foundation for good
eaon (~mememe@213.47.96.87) has joined #plone-fdn
vinsci: btw, if that was answered earlier today, don't bother - I haven't read the backlog yet :)
eaon: hey guys, what did i miss?
joelburton: vinsci: CA can talk to whomever it wants about whatever it wants (& we couldn't know and couldn't stop them , of course!), but it doesn't matter.
joelburton: if the foundation gets rights to the plone code, it's the foundation's decisions that matter.
joelburton: not CA's
joelburton: though, as you know, CA has 2 seats on the formation board. but, that's far short of a majority, so there's no secret move that CA could make to do anything with the code.
vinsci: well, presumably they'd be talking to some plone developers... I wish that these developers in such case Cc:s at least the foundation list on emails to CA in the matter
joelburton: afaik, there are *no* secret discussions about licensing going on now. there was a discussion about licensing/contrib agreement over dinner at CAWorld, that paul already described.
vinsci: k
joelburton: mmmm... vinsci, that could be right. CA could be emailing the individual developers to ask them to give CA rights to their code.
joelburton: i haven't heard that
jok2: eaon: you only missed about a one hour discussion
joelburton: and i'd assume that at least some of the devs would tell us that.
joelburton: eaon: i'll post an IRC log from this conversation
joelburton: at this point, vinsci, i'd say:
joelburton: a) CA would probably like to see Plone available under a non-GPL license
joelburton: b) the foundation has made no decisions about this, and doesn't seem like it's going to quickly or without community input
joelburton: c) the status quo now is the same as it was last week and last month
joelburton: answer your question, vinsci?
vinsci: k thanks, will read the backlog of todays chat later (was busy earlier, unfortunately)
joelburton: no problem. thanks for coming, vinsci.
eaon: [off] i read jim fulton instead of joelburton ... argh
joelburton: is flattered
joelburton: is sorry to disappoint you, though, eaon
vinsci: I think it would make sense for CA to try to find a reasonable motivation as to why not even the LGPL would suffice for them. I'd be happy with tehm buying a LGPL license, while keeping the generally available Plone GPL:d.
zopepaul: vinsci: we'll also be here later
jhauser: hm another question, then I will stop :-)
joelburton: vinsci: there are a lot of questions you, i, and everyone else has about things like that.
joelburton: i just don't have the answers yet ;)
vinsci: zopepaul: :) I'll be catching up on sleep though
joelburton: go ahead, jhauser.
zopepaul: vinsci: independent of *how* it happens, how do people feel about relicensing to bring money into the foundation/community?
jhauser: thinking of a possible rewrite of plone, how would this be done
jhauser: IP-wise
hazmat: zopepaul, -1
joelburton: a rewrite of Plone?
eaon: for z3 ?
hazmat: zopepaul, your not relicensinng your dual licensing
hazmat: there is a difference
jhauser: for example
hazmat: though minor its a semantic
joelburton: zopepaul: can we table your question, please, while we answer jhauser's previous one?
zopepaul: joelburton: sure, sorry
joelburton: jhauser: there have been different ideas in the community about how a z3 version of plone would come about.
eaon: IP-wise?
zopepaul: eaon: nope
joelburton: mmmm... i was thinking more general. conversations people have had in #plone and on ml about how/when to start, etc.
joelburton: at this point, the foundation hasn't made any decisions about a z3 version of plone.
joelburton: for it to be different IP, as far as i understand, it would have to be entirely different code
joelburton: and that seems very unlikely.
joelburton: but i don't think any decisions have been made on that front.
joelburton: i'd say, purely as a community member, that our decisions about z3 versions, both licensing and technical, are critical, and this is a dialogue we should be opening soon among ourselves.
eaon: so... does anyone except (maybe) CA prefer a new license?
joelburton: dunno, eaon. you'd have to tell me ;) but, let's move to paul's very-related-question.
eaon: okay
joelburton: (03:22:11) zopepaul: vinsci: independent of *how* it happens, how do people feel about relicensing to bring money into the foundation/community?
hazmat: eaon, i would prefer a new license over dual licensing.
vinsci: zopepaul: the problem with relicensing for money, I think, is that it only seems to make sense in the short run. In the long run, it hurts even the buyer of such a license, by slowing down checkins from their competitors in the market. For example, consider CA having such a license and player B (Open Text, for example) also having one. Now two huge companies will worry about checking in their code to Plone, because it would help their compet
vinsci: itor directly.
:|<-- HammerToe has left freenode (Remote closed the connection)
hazmat: vinsci, well said
_ender_ (~DannyB@193.172.12.112) has joined #plone-fdn
hazmat: but those companies are effectively forking adding private value to plone for the purpose of reselling.
tesdal: how would it work with a bsdish license?
vinsci: tesdal: same thing
jhauser: like icoya cms :-)
tesdal: simon is contributing a lot
hazmat: under the gpl
hazmat: for all his and struktur's third party products
jhauser: sure, but wasn't this part of the descision to gpl plone?
vinsci: tesdal: yes, because they're nice. The problem is some companies are just predators on BSD-style licensed code
joelburton: if i could suggest one thing, it would be to keep this high-level, and we can move more to which-license, etc., a bit later.
tesdal: so it's not like icoya cms
joelburton: it would be nice for us to have some sense of _how_ we _feel_ about relicensing/dual-licensing/making money of plone code.
jhauser: I do not want to condem struktur, just point out, that something like this happend with the bsdish license
zopepaul: joelburton: +100
hazmat: joelburton, i'm fine with making money off plone, i think its a good thing, but i think dual licensing is a bad thing.
vinsci: joelburton: you're asking us to put the carriage before the horse :) How I feel depends on how it's done :)
zopepaul: hazmat: that's a reasonable position
joelburton: mmmm... it's a rear-engine carriage, vinsci.
vinsci: aaah :)
tesdal: I think we all want the foundation to get money, there's no "how we feel" about that
tesdal: it's about what will be most effective and gain Plone in the long run
joelburton: right, tesdal.
joelburton: ok, let me ask a broader question
tesdal: is Plone big enough to go BSD for example
joelburton: how would you advise the board on how we should make this decision?
joelburton: we=community or we=foundation, as you prefer
hazmat: tesdal, what are the benefits of going bsd?
joelburton: we get a cool demon logo
hazmat: i assume we are trying to please CA? who explictly need something however they get it, that they can sell
jok2: runs bsd on all plone installations, so i could use the logo right now :-)
joelburton: i'd say you're half-right, hazmat
tesdal: hazmat: not necessarily benefits, but companies that are unwilling to use GPL code can include it in their products, and everyone is free to do it, regardless of size of company
joelburton: we don't have to "please" CA, no.
tesdal: didn't alan already relicense?
vinsci: thinks CA needs a lecture on how GPL creates the level playing field they say they want.
tesdal: for customers?
joelburton: but, if we want corporate sponsorship/partnership, we need something to offer our partners.
joelburton: tesdal: not to the best of knowledge, no, alan has not done that.
hazmat: tesdal, thats a good thing, but are these folks bringing long term value to the community or the product itself?
joelburton: but you may know otherwise.
tesdal: joelburton: ok, haven't talked to Alan about it so let's assume he hasn't
hazmat: i mean lots of folks seem itching to do their own private plone distros
hazmat: is that really good for plone
joelburton: until we hear otherwise, i think it's fairest to do so, tesdal.
hazmat: ?
jok2: i think there had other people voiced an interrest to go to bsd again, e.g. struktur :-)
tesdal: joelburton: absolutely
jhauser_ (~jhauser@pD9E3DC71.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #plone-fdn
vinsci: we only have this discussion, I guess, because CA think they need another license to achieve their goals with the foundation. So getting CA to understand how a true level playing field is created would be the first item on my list.
joelburton: let me just suggest again: what would probably be best is for us to think about/discuss/recommend a _way_ we'd like to see this decision get discussed/made.
tesdal: if plone doesn't have enough momentum on its own and goes bsd you get forks, with gpl it might be hard to get very big
hazmat: vinsci, they don't care
joelburton: we're not going to settle this here.
hazmat: vinsci, they just want something they can sell
hazmat: vinsci, we need to pick the license, and it should play well with them
vinsci: hazmat: they already have that (GPL:d software can be sold at any price, or just given away)
hazmat: afaics the only non dual licensing way that can happen is a bsd license.
hazmat: vinsci, thats not their issue
hazmat: vinsci, they want to sell to gpl advserse companies
hazmat: although i'm still waiting on the response to my email about this.
joelburton: ok, all, i need to turn to some client work. i have another of these chats in a few hours, and have things i need to do. thanks for coming and asking questions. thanks to my co-host, paul. i'll keep this window open, so if there are any straightforward questions i can answer, just shout my name and i'll switch here and do my beswt.
joelburton: ... best
hazmat: because plone has done quite well under the gpl
vinsci: hazmat: I don't understand their thinking in that case, because those "gpl adverse companies" would still deploy on top of Linux, which is of courseGPL:d, using 3rd part add-on Products that are also GPL:d
hazmat: vinsci, operating systems are a special case and you know it.
hazmat: vinsci, third party products, they wouldnt use nothing in the core or its deps is currently
vinsci: I don't think so
hazmat: vinsci, go read the gpl
hazmat: operating systems, compilers etc.
joelburton: hmmmm. my irc client isn't cooperating here. jok2, could you please save this irc log for me and email to me?
hazmat: or you can tell me where i can download my gpl compliant copy of oracle.
vinsci: hazmat: ah, you misunderstood me
jok2: joelburton: sorry, my backlog is not complete, it goes only 50 minutes back
joelburton: whit537? do you have a full log?
vinsci: hazmat: I meant that if they're ok with a GPL:d operating system, what would they have against a GPL:d application? I really don't see a logical reason for that :)
whit537: joelburton: yeah, looks like
whit537: you want?

by Joel Burton — last modified September 13, 2004 - 23:52

Plone CMS: Open Source Content Management

Sections

Personal tools

Document Actions

First open door session