On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:11 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 30/9/21 4:55 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote: > > Am 30.09.21 um 02:23 schrieb Chris Johns: > >> On 29/9/21 6:38 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote: > >>> Am 29.09.21 um 02:40 schrieb Chris Johns: > >>>> On 28/9/21 11:11 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote: > >>>>> Hello Joel, > >>>>> > >>>>> Am 28.09.21 um 14:48 schrieb Joel Sherrill: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 1:40 AM Christian MAUDERER > >>>>>> <christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de > >>>>>> <mailto:christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hello Joel, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Am 28.09.21 um 01:12 schrieb Joel Sherrill: > >>>>>> > The Microblaze port is interesting for attribution. I did > >>>>>> initial > >>>>>> work > >>>>>> > on it. Hesham added to that and got Hello on a board. Alex is > >>>>>> close to > >>>>>> > submitting the port in a nice state. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > This is almost seven years across three developers.. The > >>>>>> original > >>>>>> work > >>>>>> > predates source code reorganisation. Alex deleted the autoconf > >>>>>> support > >>>>>> > and created waf. Hesham and I agreed to convert to BSD-2. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > When submitted, we decided it was best for Alex to submit a > >>>>>> Joel > >>>>>> patch, > >>>>>> > then Hesham, then Alex to finish it off. This keeps git blame > >>>>>> working. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Not quite the same topic but related to credit due. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But maybe an important extension. Should we replace "sponsored" > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> "sponsored or supported"? That would allow to mention anyone who > >>>>>> helps > >>>>>> in any way, regardless whether it's financial, with information, > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> hobby time or with whatever else. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I usually use the word sponsored. Support implies commercial > >>>>>> activities the > >>>>>> way I/we tend to use it. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Seems that I picked the wrong word then. Maybe you can help me finding > >>>>> the > >>>>> correct term: > >>>>> > >>>>> The one case is clear: Someone pays that someone else develops for > >>>>> example a > >>>>> driver. I think for that "sponsored" is a good term. > >>>>> > >>>>> Another similar case could be the following: You get help with writing a > >>>>> driver > >>>>> for example with information or some other form of help that doesn't > >>>>> result > >>>>> in a > >>>>> copyright for that person or company. It doesn't involve money or some > >>>>> other > >>>>> form of payment (T-shirts, pizza, ...) so it's not really sponsoring. > >>>>> Despite > >>>>> that it might would be nice to mention them if they want to be > >>>>> mentioned. I > >>>>> think the right location would be the same place like the one we just > >>>>> discuss > >>>>> for sponsoring. What would be a good term for that? > >>>> > >>>> I think we should take baby steps with this. > >>> > >>> OK. I'll concentrate only on the case where some work is really sponsored > >>> with > >>> money. I think a lot of work on RTEMS falls in that category. Most of the > >>> times > >>> the sponsors don't want to appear with a name but in my case that caused > >>> this > >>> discussion they do. > >> > >> I appreciate the customer may want this however my role is to ensure the > >> process > >> makes sense for the whole community. I am still not sure. > >> > > > > I fully agree that you should discuss it from a community point of view > > here. I > > can't take that role in this discussion. > > > >> It will be your customer's decision to have the changes merged and for the > >> repo > >> to absorb them and maintain them. They always have the right to hold on to > >> the > >> changes and maintain them if they do not agree with the outcome of this > >> process. > >> > > > > Of course. > > > >>>> I have some reservation on where > >>>> this could go and the long term effects. If too widely spread and > >>>> embedded in > >>>> the source it could be difficult to remove or change if we find an issue > >>>> in > >>>> doing this. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Understood. > >>> > >>>> In a private chat on the subject Gedare suggested a "Supporters" file? > >>>> This > >>>> could list those who have provided support and wish to be listed. I am > >>>> avoiding > >>>> sponsorship and other words here on purpose for now. I have no idea what > >>>> works > >>>> legally around the world. > >>> > >>> 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. > >> > >> I also have other legal concerned I do not wish to discussion here. > > > > OK. Still not sure whether it really makes a difference whether the notes > > are in > > a "Supporters" file, in the sources directly or not mentioned at all. But > > maybe > > I use a too intuitive view here. Legal systems are often not based on what > > feels > > correct (including the German one). So you are right: We have to be careful. > > > >> > >>> You mentioned a "Supporters" file as an alternative. That's OK for me > >>> too. How > >>> would that look? Something like > >>> > >>> * 2020: BSP for FOO chip supported by "Some corp" > >>> > >>> * September 2021: "Some corp" supported development of feature X > >>> > >>> * 1995 to 2021: Continuous support of development by company "Some > >>> corp" > >>> > >>> Not sure whether "supported" is the right term in all cases. > >> > >> Close, I would remove the "extra" words. Maybe: > >> > >> * May 2020 > >> - FOO Friers LLC > >> - BSP for FOO Chip > >> > >> Key is adding what is needed while keeping the info minimal. > > > > Looks a bit like YAML. In that case we maybe should take care that it is > > fully > > YAML compatible (in case we some-when want to parse it into another format): > > > > # Some explanation > > # what this file is > > > > - 2020-05 > > - FOO Friers LLC > > - BSP for FOO Chip > > > > No issue with that format. > > >>> What kind or order would we use? Just chronological? > >> > >> Yes. We will need to generate something that is placed at the start to > >> explain > >> the contents and any limitations and legally protects the project and other > >> contributors. > >> > > > > OK. > > > >>> What about companies that > >>> are actively involved in development over a long time (especially the > >>> ones that > >>> appear in the copyright lines)? Should they be mentioned? > >> > >> No. > >> > > > > OK. > > > >>> Same rules like for the sources: No contact information and only a name? > >> > >> Nothing at all. We should only be adding information in a single place. > >> > > > > Sorry: Bad wording. What I meant: Should we apply the same rules that you > > suggested for the sources in the other mail thread: No contact information > > and > > only a name. > > Ah ok and yes. > > > I didn't want to say that we should have the information in the sources > > too. I > > fully agree to not duplicate information. > > Makes sense now. > > >>>> I do want a working foundation and yes I know that has stalled for > >>>> reasons > >>>> beyond my control but if that path becomes active I am not sure how that > >>>> works > >>>> in with this approach. > >>> > >>> 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. > >> > > > > Not sure whether I agree that a non-profit is that different at least from > > the > > legal point that I know. But that only strengthens your point regarding the > > difficulties with different legal system. > > We could bike shed this forever and never know if we are right or wrong. > > >>> So in case of a "Supporters" file, the foundation would have a separate > >>> line > >>> like > >>> > >>> * 2021 to present: Continuous support of development and > >>> infrastructure by > >>> the RTEMS Foundation > >> > >> There are practical issues with doing this. I also see no value so this is > >> a no > >> from me adding an RF entry. For example, who dives back into the file to > >> edit > >> this if it changes? Who changes these entries that are no longer valid? > >> Can we > >> even make such a change? > > > > Yes, that should be another rule: No open time spans. > > Yes. > > >>>> I also acknowledge I am not sure what other open source projects do and > >>>> how > >>>> they > >>>> handle this. If there are other working examples we can review I would > >>>> welcome > >>>> that. > >>> > >>> I put some time into finding examples and I found ... not much.I would > >>> have > >>> expected for example a big project like the Linux kernel to have a lot of > >>> these > >>> lines and to have clear rules. But: It's only 38 lines in source files > >>> that have > >>> a "sponsored by". At least one commit has a "This patchset has been > >>> sponsored by > >>> ..." in the commit message. But I didn't find any rules. > >> > >> Yes and this is part of my concern. I prefer we do not break new ground > >> and we > >> find there are real issues we are not aware of. > >> > >>> It's similar for FreeBSD. I found some "sponsored" in the code. Some in > >>> the > >>> commit messages. But I haven't seen any clear rules. > >> > >> Yeap
Ping. I think we have now some patches and process to use "Sponsored-By: ..." in commit messages. I can't find the guidance in the docs. > >> > >>> Maybe I used the wrong search terms? > >> > >> I do not think so, it matches what I found. > >> > >> I have to say I not entirely comfortable with this happening and I will > >> not be > >> encouraging additions. > > > > I assume that is also true for the "Supporters" file? > > Yeap and only because I am not sure how this will actually work. For example > how > do you know the person asking for the attribution has the permission to do > this? > That question is a rabbit hole. > > > If the outcome of this discussion is that we add a rule to not allow any > > attribution for sponsoring, that's OK too. But in that case we should > > document > > it somewhere too (together with the reason). > > Sure. > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel