6 ms·

More context: First when a board member resigned from the .NET Foundation: https://rodneylittlesii.com/posts/topic/foundation-echo-chamber https://rodneylittl

More context: First when a board member resigned from the .NET Foundation: https://rodneylittlesii.com/posts/topic/foundation-echo-chamber https://rodneylittlesii.com/posts/topic/foundation-echo-cham... Then this: https://www.glennwatson.net/posts/dnf-problems-solutions https://www.glennwatson.net/posts/dnf-problems-solutions Lots of different Twitter threads on this topic since a few days. For example other OSS project maintainers also noticed that their project was moved to a different GitHub org without their knowledge: https://twitter.com/JeremySkinner/status/1445272800185495555?s=20 https://twitter.com/JeremySkinner/status/1445272800185495555... This is even worse given that the rights were NEVER assigned to the .NET Foundation in the first place: https://twitter.com/GeoffreyHuntley/status/1445362229642027014?s=20 https://twitter.com/GeoffreyHuntley/status/14453622296420270... This whole things is EXTREMELY SKETCHY and very very concerning!

achandlerwhite 5y ago
For my project, which was also on the contribution model, I balked when they asked me to add them to the copyright line on every file. I pushed back and they said I didn't need to do it. I got the feeling it was just another checklist item from them--but attention to detail matters and communication is key.
Aaronontheweb 5y ago
This also comes on the back of the .NET Foundation now requiring new projects to assign their intellectual property, lock, stock, and barrel, to the foundation itself. You can no longer simply contribute code to the foundation - it has to own it now.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Not an unusual requirement, it's the same as the "bastion of Free Software", the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - my123 5y ago
    + code licensed to the .NET Foundation is released under a MIT license anyway, so that it can be used commercially by anybody.
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    Isn't this very common for large projects? Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent?
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Yeah, by giving the foundation all the power it needs to relicense it however it wants. > Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent? That's the ideal situation. Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Linux kernel does this. It will never be licensed as anything other than GPLv2 because it's virtually impossible to obtain the consent of all developers who ever contributed to it. The more Linux grows, the more people contribute to it, the stronger this protection becomes.
      - ChrisLomont 5y ago
        >Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Also means if the license ever loses a legal case then the project will always be susceptible to that flaw since it cannot be corrected. Think of a license as code. It currently works, but tomorrow you may find a serious bug, or, in the case of law, laws change outside the project, making a serious bug. Now you cannot ever fix it. And, in common cases, it protects the project from contributors wishing to remove their contribution later, breaking the project. Linus could get a brain tumor and decide to revoke his contributions to the Linux kernel. Or his heirs could do it, since by law they get his copyrights, including all the code he ever contributed. Guess what that would do. Or any contributor to Linux can do it. 10,000 legal minefields is not a good way to run a project.
- gortok 5y ago
  This is incorrect. > Assignment and Contribution Models. The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. The project also confirms that the project’s submissions to .NET Foundation are its own original work (there are also instructions for any third party materials that might be included). They accept both models (Contribution and Assignment). https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit
  - Aaronontheweb 5y ago
    Looks like you're right - they removed that option and added it back: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb1579bbfe4c1469b0c89cdc8f1ce19ff8610 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb15...
    - gortok 5y ago
      The PR that removed the Contribution model was only merged for 2 hours before it was reverted: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122
      - Aaronontheweb 5y ago
        And it was never discussed nor has it ever really been revisited since, as you point out in your own comments on that issue. This is part of the larger issue of how the DFN interacts (or lack thereof) with its own member projects and usually only lets us know about changes after they're announced
- achandlerwhite 5y ago
  I don't believe this is currently true. The contribution model is there. I even recently had a PR accepted to clarify the language on the submission page and form.
philliphaydon 5y ago
You missed this one: https://twitter.com/GlennCoder/status/1443356417742675968 https://twitter.com/GlennCoder/status/1443356417742675968
- styx31 5y ago
  And this once just now :( https://twitter.com/robmen/status/1445521876688654340 https://twitter.com/robmen/status/1445521876688654340

achandlerwhite 5y ago

For my project, which was also on the contribution model, I balked when they asked me to add them to the copyright line on every file. I pushed back and they said I didn't need to do it. I got the feeling it was just another checklist item from them--but attention to detail matters and communication is key.

Aaronontheweb 5y ago

This also comes on the back of the .NET Foundation now requiring new projects to assign their intellectual property, lock, stock, and barrel, to the foundation itself. You can no longer simply contribute code to the foundation - it has to own it now.

pjc50 5y ago
Not an unusual requirement, it's the same as the "bastion of Free Software", the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- my123 5y ago
  + code licensed to the .NET Foundation is released under a MIT license anyway, so that it can be used commercially by anybody.
- hermitdev 5y ago
  Isn't this very common for large projects? Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent?
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > Solves the future problem of potential relicensing, doesn't it? Yeah, by giving the foundation all the power it needs to relicense it however it wants. > Of having to track down potentially 10's of thousands of contributors that may be hard to find (or even dead) to get their consent? That's the ideal situation. Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Linux kernel does this. It will never be licensed as anything other than GPLv2 because it's virtually impossible to obtain the consent of all developers who ever contributed to it. The more Linux grows, the more people contribute to it, the stronger this protection becomes.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      >Make the copyright stuff so hard no one will ever bother trying to take over a project. Also means if the license ever loses a legal case then the project will always be susceptible to that flaw since it cannot be corrected. Think of a license as code. It currently works, but tomorrow you may find a serious bug, or, in the case of law, laws change outside the project, making a serious bug. Now you cannot ever fix it. And, in common cases, it protects the project from contributors wishing to remove their contribution later, breaking the project. Linus could get a brain tumor and decide to revoke his contributions to the Linux kernel. Or his heirs could do it, since by law they get his copyrights, including all the code he ever contributed. Guess what that would do. Or any contributor to Linux can do it. 10,000 legal minefields is not a good way to run a project.
gortok 5y ago
This is incorrect. > Assignment and Contribution Models. The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. The project also confirms that the project’s submissions to .NET Foundation are its own original work (there are also instructions for any third party materials that might be included). They accept both models (Contribution and Assignment). https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit
- Aaronontheweb 5y ago
  Looks like you're right - they removed that option and added it back: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb1579bbfe4c1469b0c89cdc8f1ce19ff8610 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/commit/7debb15...
  - gortok 5y ago
    The PR that removed the Contribution model was only merged for 2 hours before it was reverted: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/122
    - Aaronontheweb 5y ago
      And it was never discussed nor has it ever really been revisited since, as you point out in your own comments on that issue. This is part of the larger issue of how the DFN interacts (or lack thereof) with its own member projects and usually only lets us know about changes after they're announced
achandlerwhite 5y ago
I don't believe this is currently true. The contribution model is there. I even recently had a PR accepted to clarify the language on the submission page and form.

philliphaydon 5y ago

You missed this one: https://twitter.com/GlennCoder/status/1443356417742675968 https://twitter.com/GlennCoder/status/1443356417742675968

styx31 5y ago
And this once just now :( https://twitter.com/robmen/status/1445521876688654340 https://twitter.com/robmen/status/1445521876688654340