On 30/9/21 5:33 pm, Thomas DOERFLER wrote: > 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.
This is fine. An organisation and their tax system have well established processes to audit and collect the related tax. Contributing to a non-profit to complete task X or any directed task then claiming that payment as a tax deduction is not allowed. That loop hole was closed many years ago. > Certain areas are handled non-profit. Maybe the question then is, how to > properly distinguish them. For a non-profit it is the role of that organisation and not this project. It would be concerning if the project started to take on that role. The rules around a non-profit and it's sponsors are for it to administer. >>> 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. Maybe fairness is not a good word in this case. > 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 welcome a user placing a "power by RTEMS" on their box or in there marketing or documentation. >> 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. Thanks and please do. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel