3 ms·

The ASF requires a CLA for all regular contributors or large contributions, so I don’t think this is a particularly good barometer.

remram 2y ago
That's a good point. The ASF's FAQ [1] states that "All software developed by all projects of The Apache Software Foundation is freely available without charge" and that it "is specified in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation [2]", however I see no such specification in the linked incorporation. Is there some actual legal guarantee there? [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree [2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html
- fweimer 2y ago
  I think it's mentioned in this document: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html
  - remram 2y ago
    Thanks! It seems a little short of the claim in their FAQ though, but it's something: > The purpose of the Corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity [...] including the creation and maintenance of "open source" software distributed by the Corporation to the public at no charge
    - ted_dunning 2y ago
      I don't think that falls short. The reason for the "any lawful act" language is to allow the ASF to do things like run a conference, accept donations, sell t-shirts and other activities. If the statement was only "develop open-source software" there are all kinds of important activities that support open source development that would be impossible. The fact is, however, that certificates can be changed by the people who can vote. IN the case of the ASF, the members are the ones who vote. Getting those ~800 members to radically trash the traditional goal of the foundation is not going to be possible as long as the current membership is active.
      - remram 2y ago
        What I mean is that, if they made some software non-free alongside some free ones (to make money to finance the free ones, for example), that still seems valid as to the current certificate of incorporation. Their FAQ says "all software free no exception" and this document says something weaker.
      - immibis 2y ago
        [flagged]
        remram 2y ago
        If you're trying to say something, say it, and point to proof. I don't know where to even find what you are trying about.
saurik 2y ago
The difference with the ASF/FSF is that they are non-profits with a mission statement (and, if we don't trust that enough--due to OpenAI, as I don't entirely understand what happened there--with clearly-mission-aligned board leadership) that prevent them from pulling the rug out from under their license. (...and, right as I pushed this comment, I see that someone else looked into it, and maybe the ASF fails to have such a clause anywhere ;P but hopefully it is there and just a bit hidden.)
- cortesoft 2y ago
  Sure, but that contradicts the statement made in the comment they are replying to: > anytime you see a CLA, you see the true intentions of the project. A project that will always be FOSS won't have a need for a CLA. If there are conditions to the statement, it isn't "anytime you see a CLA".
  - saurik 2y ago
    Sure, but now we would need to find another epicycle for why giving a for-profit corporation this dangerous power over its licensees is safe/benign. There is, at times, some logic to "the exception that proves the rule".

remram 2y ago

That's a good point. The ASF's FAQ [1] states that "All software developed by all projects of The Apache Software Foundation is freely available without charge" and that it "is specified in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation [2]", however I see no such specification in the linked incorporation. Is there some actual legal guarantee there? [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree [2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html

fweimer 2y ago
I think it's mentioned in this document: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html
- remram 2y ago
  Thanks! It seems a little short of the claim in their FAQ though, but it's something: > The purpose of the Corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity [...] including the creation and maintenance of "open source" software distributed by the Corporation to the public at no charge
  - ted_dunning 2y ago
    I don't think that falls short. The reason for the "any lawful act" language is to allow the ASF to do things like run a conference, accept donations, sell t-shirts and other activities. If the statement was only "develop open-source software" there are all kinds of important activities that support open source development that would be impossible. The fact is, however, that certificates can be changed by the people who can vote. IN the case of the ASF, the members are the ones who vote. Getting those ~800 members to radically trash the traditional goal of the foundation is not going to be possible as long as the current membership is active.
    - remram 2y ago
      What I mean is that, if they made some software non-free alongside some free ones (to make money to finance the free ones, for example), that still seems valid as to the current certificate of incorporation. Their FAQ says "all software free no exception" and this document says something weaker.
    - immibis 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - remram 2y ago
        If you're trying to say something, say it, and point to proof. I don't know where to even find what you are trying about.

saurik 2y ago

The difference with the ASF/FSF is that they are non-profits with a mission statement (and, if we don't trust that enough--due to OpenAI, as I don't entirely understand what happened there--with clearly-mission-aligned board leadership) that prevent them from pulling the rug out from under their license. (...and, right as I pushed this comment, I see that someone else looked into it, and maybe the ASF fails to have such a clause anywhere ;P but hopefully it is there and just a bit hidden.)

cortesoft 2y ago
Sure, but that contradicts the statement made in the comment they are replying to: > anytime you see a CLA, you see the true intentions of the project. A project that will always be FOSS won't have a need for a CLA. If there are conditions to the statement, it isn't "anytime you see a CLA".
- saurik 2y ago
  Sure, but now we would need to find another epicycle for why giving a for-profit corporation this dangerous power over its licensees is safe/benign. There is, at times, some logic to "the exception that proves the rule".