3 ms·

I don't understand why the foundation didn't just fork IS4 and continue developing it? Identity server gathered an unusual amount of corporate support and minds

by zo1 5y ago

I don't understand why the foundation didn't just fork IS4 and continue developing it? Identity server gathered an unusual amount of corporate support and mindshare that it feels like a huge waste.

WorldMaker 5y ago
It sounds like the .NET Foundation didn't feel they owned enough of the copyright to do that, which would be why the article talks about the .NET Foundation now (too late) doing what Open Source Foundations do as a base principal: requiring the assignment of copyright/ownership/CLAs to control/avoid relicensing. Asking now makes them seem like jerks, but if they had asked before and made it a policy from the beginning they would have avoided some of the root causes of this mess. (This a harsh lesson that just about every major Open Source Foundation has faced.)
- achandlerwhite 5y ago
  Are you sure they are requiring copyright assignment? I recently had my project included under the contribution model where I retain the copyright. The website wording was ambiguous on the .NET Foundation page about this option so I created a PR to clarify that there was a contribution model in addition to the assignment model and the PR was promptly accepted and went public: See assignment and contribution models: https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit The word in the GitHub issues discussions is that they are working with their lawyers to clarify, but as of right now the contribution model is an option.
  - WorldMaker 5y ago
    That's one of the complaints in the article that they were about to. It seems like the discussion is ongoing. I appreciate the clarification.
oaiey 5y ago
There is no sufficient community around the .NET Foundation to "continue develop it". The F# foundation could pull that off but not the .NET Foundation. And identityserver especially needs a shitload of domain knowledge (and Ms itself is competing with Azure AD) so they are probably unwilling to chime in

by zo1 5y ago

I don't understand why the foundation didn't just fork IS4 and continue developing it? Identity server gathered an unusual amount of corporate support and mindshare that it feels like a huge waste.

WorldMaker 5y ago

It sounds like the .NET Foundation didn't feel they owned enough of the copyright to do that, which would be why the article talks about the .NET Foundation now (too late) doing what Open Source Foundations do as a base principal: requiring the assignment of copyright/ownership/CLAs to control/avoid relicensing. Asking now makes them seem like jerks, but if they had asked before and made it a policy from the beginning they would have avoided some of the root causes of this mess. (This a harsh lesson that just about every major Open Source Foundation has faced.)

achandlerwhite 5y ago
Are you sure they are requiring copyright assignment? I recently had my project included under the contribution model where I retain the copyright. The website wording was ambiguous on the .NET Foundation page about this option so I created a PR to clarify that there was a contribution model in addition to the assignment model and the PR was promptly accepted and went public: See assignment and contribution models: https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit The word in the GitHub issues discussions is that they are working with their lawyers to clarify, but as of right now the contribution model is an option.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  That's one of the complaints in the article that they were about to. It seems like the discussion is ongoing. I appreciate the clarification.

oaiey 5y ago

There is no sufficient community around the .NET Foundation to "continue develop it". The F# foundation could pull that off but not the .NET Foundation. And identityserver especially needs a shitload of domain knowledge (and Ms itself is competing with Azure AD) so they are probably unwilling to chime in