It would be a nice white paper to compare the development, release, IP, infrastructure and branding processes of the Linux Foundation vs. Apache vs. Eclipse. I

It would be a nice white paper to compare the development, release, IP, infrastructure and branding processes of the Linux Foundation vs. Apache vs. Eclipse. I pick these three as they are foundations that have been long lasting and have proven an ability to retain member companies and a diverse set of projects. The comparison would take a lot of effort to do but be worthwhile. You need to compare details as minute as around how web sites are hosted, how products are named, trademarking + copyright issues, provenance and IP policies around releases, mentorship, maintenance --- even things as formal as how issues are created, pull requests established, and how projects are organized among the committers. The foundations can derive policy and rules at any level - and there is a significant variance depending upon the underlying charter of what the foundation is trying to promote. So the best place to start is the bylaws of each foundation, which are open source themselves, to understand the underlying motivation. Nearly all choices are made from the underlying principles. Interestingly, the Eclipse Foundation is one of the larger revenue organizations from member contributions, but they do not have that many projects - maybe 300 or so. The IP provenance requirements are so stringent that many smaller projects turn away because they do not desire such a level of review. So the Eclipse Foundation is about to introduce a dual IP mode where projects can self-certify their IP provenance. The entire process around releases will be different can instead of taking weeks to make a release, could be done nearly instantaneously, allowing many projects that have a small group or open source license to become a project of the foundation, if that was a desire.