Hi Chris,
Am 30.09.21 um 02:23 schrieb Chris Johns:
On 29/9/21 6:38 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
To be honest: If sponsored work is a legal problem, we have that with or without
a note in the files. It's only more visible with a note in the files. I don't
think that a legal problem would be avoidable just by not mentioning it.
That is not the legal aspect I have in mind. There exists constraints about
payments for work done in relation to tax law and this varies around the world.
A notice could be taken as evidence. For example a functioning non-profit such
as the RTEMS Foundation can accept donations and how that money is spent is up
to the foundation. The contributor has no input on that process otherwise it is
tax avoidance. This area is strict and the governance is important. I will let
you consider the relationship between fair attribution for the whole community
and those contributing to a non-profit.
Surely this must be considered, but OTOH RTEMS code is definitively a
project which combines non-profit and with-profit people to create and
maintain code, especially since the birth of the project was with-profit.
So if it comes to contributions e.g. from our company: Yes, they are
created with profit.
Certain areas are handled non-profit. Maybe the question then is, how to
properly distinguish them.
A foundation wouldn't change the problem discussed here. Don't get me wrong: I
would love to see the foundation. But I don't think that the foundation would be
the the same as the RTEMS open source project from a legal point of view. It
would only be another (much needed) sponsor of work and infrastructure.
Sorry, a non-profit does not work that way as I stated above so no attribution
can happen. This makes attribution fundamentally unfair.
I agree that a "sponsored by RTEMS Foundation" entry wouldn't make
sense, because the whole idea of the Foundation is to maintain RTEMS.
But, regarding the "sponsored by" entry, I wouldn't talk about fairness.
In the past we always had the question "who is using RTEMS" and in many
cases had to shrug shoulders because we either don't know or shouldn't
tell. If RTEMS user companies officially ask to be visible, I think this
is something we should push and not block, right?
I have to say I not entirely comfortable with this happening and I will not be
encouraging additions. If Thomas wishes to discuss this further I suggest he
reaches out to me personally.
That makes sense, I will try next week when being back at work.
Thomas.
Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Thomas DOERFLER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: thomas.doerf...@embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 12
fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 09
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
