8 ms·
I'm curious to understand where to draw the line between the need for governance/bureaucracy versus just releasing code on GitHub and being a good participant (
by gtirloni 10y ago
I'm curious to understand where to draw the line between the need for governance/bureaucracy versus just releasing code on GitHub and being a good participant (reviewing PRs, running a mailing list, etc).
Maybe whenever there are a dozen or so companies trying to create a business model so they don't fight each other too much? Has that ever worked with the high profile Apache projects that people remember here (OpenOffice, CouchDB, etC)?
- TylerJewell 10y agoThere is a really interesting distinction between Apache and Eclipse around IP policy. It's taken me a good year of releasing with Eclipse to understand many of the nuances. The biggest distinction is that Eclipse has an IP Policy where all of the code and assets has to have provenance of the code - either code submitted under a CLA, but if there are links to third party libraries, they are each independently reviewed by an on staff legal team. There are more details beyond this, but that level of human provenance review for every Eclipse project for it to be released, enables certain companies to more readily and easily adopt projects with not only an EPL license, but released as an Eclipse project with signed binaries on their hosted servers. There are differences around mentoring, release process, hosting rules, infrastructure. But at the end of the day, it's about structure, rigorous rules, mentorship, and community.
- jimjag 10y agoApache's IP provenance is also considerably robust and respected.