4 ms·

I understand the consternation -- I have very mixed feelings about the Linux Foundation (I am on the TOC of the CNCF, an LF project), but the reality is that as

I understand the consternation -- I have very mixed feelings about the Linux Foundation (I am on the TOC of the CNCF, an LF project), but the reality is that as a 501(c)(6) they are much better resourced than the 501(c)(3)s dedicated to open source. In my opinion, the LF therefore represents our (current) best shot to achieve some common good, and (speaking personally), I have resolved to work from within the LF to make it more useful to the broader constituency of open source communities. (As a concrete example, I championed the LF/CNCF acquiring and relicensing RethinkDB[1].) Similarly, I think applying a purity test to the LF would be counterproductive: it would end up refusing essentially everyone's money and becoming the FSF or Apache Foundation -- two flat-broke 501(c)(3)s. (Aside, individuals should never ever donate to the LF; donate to a 501(c)(3) instead.) To sum: I would rather have VMware in than out, and then influence the LF to abide by its broader open source constituency, funding projects at the grass roots that are the lifeblood of open source -- but I also understand those that would view taking VMware's money as selling out that constituency! [1] https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-liberation-of-rethinkdb https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-liberation-of-rethinkdb

jimjag 10y ago
The ASF a "flat broke" 501(c)(3)? Hardly. We simply run a tight, fiscal ship. But broke? Please stop spreading FUD.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bigbugbag 10y ago
Good for you that you're TOC of CNCF an LF project, but I didn't understand a single sentence you wrote. Maybe try using actual words and explaining what may seem obvious to you because it's probably not to others reading you.
- drostie 10y ago
  Approximate η-expansion: "I understand your outrage, and I also have mixed feelings about the role of the Linux Foundation in open-source. I am on the Technical Oversight Committee of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation which is a Linux Foundation project. However I do want to say that the Linux Foundation is a not-for-profit 'business league' under US law, rather than a not-for-profit 'charitable organization.' The fact that they have these partner companies which make them up, gives them a lot more money than the open-source charitable organizations can provide. Because they have more money, in my opinion the Linux Foundation has the potential to do a lot more good for open source, and so my personal goal is to work from within the Linux Foundation to help it do that. For example, I was very vocal about us buying and open-sourcing RethinkDB. What you're asking for is for us to test the 'purity' of businesses before we let them join the league that is the Linux Foundation. That is a bad idea. It just means fewer businesses will join the league and less of their money will be available for open-source. The Free Software Foundation and Apache Foundation are good examples of similar things: charitable organizations which now do not have very much money because they are not willing to be 'tainted' by big business. On the flip side, please do not donate to the business league as a private individual; give your resources to these charitable organizations who need it instead. But I would rather have VMWare be one of the league contributors than not have their money. We can always work from within the Linux Foundation to say 'you have to listen to these people who want Linux to remain committed to open-source,' so that they keep funding these projects that keep our open-source movement going. On the other hand I understand why you think that taking VMWare's money is essentially 'selling out,' saying that we care more about the money than about our principles."
  - bcantrill 10y ago
    That was absolutely awesome -- thank you! (And apologies to those for whom I was being too cryptic!)
    - drostie 10y ago
      Consider it me paying forward the joy I got from Fork Yeah!, which is still somewhere in my top 10 tech-talks of all time. :)
fnord123 10y ago
> broader constituency of open source communities By this do you mean projects with closable source licenses (Apache/BSD/MIT) and the companies that prefer to use them? Does this mean we'll see more sub projects like the CNCF which are focused on non-GPL OSS? >I would rather have VMware in than out I agree in general that a big tent model works well, but I think the question here is more about what it means to be 'in'. Maybe you have more nuts and bolts insight into it. From the outside, I think the feeling is that membership was as a symbol that large organizations support Free software; the world is changing to embrace FOSS; etc. But now it looks more like there's no ideology involved and it's more like NASCAR sponsorship at best. At worst, it looks like 'pay us and we'll won't enforce the GPL as it pertains to you'. I'm not surprised pitchforks are getting rustled.
- ThrowawayR2 10y ago
  > But now it looks more like there's no ideology involved ... It's the Linux Foundation, not the GPL Foundation or the FOSS Foundation. And Linus has made his position abundantly clear on the LKML that the GPL is a tool that serves Linux, not the other way around. Therefore, it shouldn't be all that surprising that there is no ideology involved.
  - fnord123 10y ago
    Everything you say is true. But Linus isn't the only person whose opinion matters. The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel is far larger than the ones around the open source BSDs. The license and ideology were, afaict, a large component in that.
    - josefx 10y ago
      > The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel You mean the GPL v2 kernel that wont ever migrate to GPL v3, keeping it incompatible with anything a GPL purist should touch. Meanwhile Debian GNU/Hurd still isn't production ready.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
davexunit 10y ago
The FSF is not flat broke.
- sedachv 10y ago
  For some reason LF's latest available 990 return is from 2014. Relevant numbers for 2014: LF assets $20,915,947 total revenue $31,452,792 FSF assets $1,009,228 total revenue $1,110,148 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460... https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/FinancialStatement_FY2014.pdf https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/FinancialStatement_FY2014.pdf Note that LF gets 99.9% of its revenue from "program services," which I assume is corporate sponsorship and the training programs they run. FSF gets $100,000 from mail-order merch and the rest from donations. Looking at the FSF patron list and price levels, it seems like the FSF get about half of their donations from corporate sponsors and half from individual sponsors: https://www.fsf.org/patrons https://www.fsf.org/patrons (One interesting thing is that Google stopped sponsoring the FSF in 2016.) The FSF is definitely underfunded, donate today if you have not donated recently: https://my.fsf.org/donate https://my.fsf.org/donate

jimjag 10y ago

The ASF a "flat broke" 501(c)(3)? Hardly. We simply run a tight, fiscal ship. But broke? Please stop spreading FUD.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bigbugbag 10y ago

Good for you that you're TOC of CNCF an LF project, but I didn't understand a single sentence you wrote. Maybe try using actual words and explaining what may seem obvious to you because it's probably not to others reading you.

drostie 10y ago
Approximate η-expansion: "I understand your outrage, and I also have mixed feelings about the role of the Linux Foundation in open-source. I am on the Technical Oversight Committee of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation which is a Linux Foundation project. However I do want to say that the Linux Foundation is a not-for-profit 'business league' under US law, rather than a not-for-profit 'charitable organization.' The fact that they have these partner companies which make them up, gives them a lot more money than the open-source charitable organizations can provide. Because they have more money, in my opinion the Linux Foundation has the potential to do a lot more good for open source, and so my personal goal is to work from within the Linux Foundation to help it do that. For example, I was very vocal about us buying and open-sourcing RethinkDB. What you're asking for is for us to test the 'purity' of businesses before we let them join the league that is the Linux Foundation. That is a bad idea. It just means fewer businesses will join the league and less of their money will be available for open-source. The Free Software Foundation and Apache Foundation are good examples of similar things: charitable organizations which now do not have very much money because they are not willing to be 'tainted' by big business. On the flip side, please do not donate to the business league as a private individual; give your resources to these charitable organizations who need it instead. But I would rather have VMWare be one of the league contributors than not have their money. We can always work from within the Linux Foundation to say 'you have to listen to these people who want Linux to remain committed to open-source,' so that they keep funding these projects that keep our open-source movement going. On the other hand I understand why you think that taking VMWare's money is essentially 'selling out,' saying that we care more about the money than about our principles."
- bcantrill 10y ago
  That was absolutely awesome -- thank you! (And apologies to those for whom I was being too cryptic!)
  - drostie 10y ago
    Consider it me paying forward the joy I got from Fork Yeah!, which is still somewhere in my top 10 tech-talks of all time. :)

fnord123 10y ago

> broader constituency of open source communities By this do you mean projects with closable source licenses (Apache/BSD/MIT) and the companies that prefer to use them? Does this mean we'll see more sub projects like the CNCF which are focused on non-GPL OSS? >I would rather have VMware in than out I agree in general that a big tent model works well, but I think the question here is more about what it means to be 'in'. Maybe you have more nuts and bolts insight into it. From the outside, I think the feeling is that membership was as a symbol that large organizations support Free software; the world is changing to embrace FOSS; etc. But now it looks more like there's no ideology involved and it's more like NASCAR sponsorship at best. At worst, it looks like 'pay us and we'll won't enforce the GPL as it pertains to you'. I'm not surprised pitchforks are getting rustled.

ThrowawayR2 10y ago
> But now it looks more like there's no ideology involved ... It's the Linux Foundation, not the GPL Foundation or the FOSS Foundation. And Linus has made his position abundantly clear on the LKML that the GPL is a tool that serves Linux, not the other way around. Therefore, it shouldn't be all that surprising that there is no ideology involved.
- fnord123 10y ago
  Everything you say is true. But Linus isn't the only person whose opinion matters. The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel is far larger than the ones around the open source BSDs. The license and ideology were, afaict, a large component in that.
  - josefx 10y ago
    > The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel You mean the GPL v2 kernel that wont ever migrate to GPL v3, keeping it incompatible with anything a GPL purist should touch. Meanwhile Debian GNU/Hurd still isn't production ready.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago

davexunit 10y ago

The FSF is not flat broke.

sedachv 10y ago
For some reason LF's latest available 990 return is from 2014. Relevant numbers for 2014: LF assets $20,915,947 total revenue $31,452,792 FSF assets $1,009,228 total revenue $1,110,148 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460503801 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460... https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/FinancialStatement_FY2014.pdf https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/FinancialStatement_FY2014.pdf Note that LF gets 99.9% of its revenue from "program services," which I assume is corporate sponsorship and the training programs they run. FSF gets $100,000 from mail-order merch and the rest from donations. Looking at the FSF patron list and price levels, it seems like the FSF get about half of their donations from corporate sponsors and half from individual sponsors: https://www.fsf.org/patrons https://www.fsf.org/patrons (One interesting thing is that Google stopped sponsoring the FSF in 2016.) The FSF is definitely underfunded, donate today if you have not donated recently: https://my.fsf.org/donate https://my.fsf.org/donate