On 9/30/2012 3:34 PM, Gary Gatling wrote: > > Could government or corporate grants be a way to raise funding for > development of new features or programmers in openafs? Especially since > openafs is open source software and everyone benefits? I'm sorry if this > is a stupid question...
Gary, Its not a stupid question. YFSI did receive U.S. Government SBIR grant funding. Such funding is required to be used for the establishment of a commercial product but is insufficient by itself to bring a product to market. Corporate grants are nearly impossible to obtain for software development. There is no justification for using the granting process when software development contract payments are 100% deductible as a business expense. Software development contracts are not hard to obtain when the cost is below $10,000. Unfortunately, there are very few software development projects that can be accomplished in two or three developer weeks. Using rxgk as an example. The original draft of the security class was imported into the OpenAFS source tree in August 2004. An effort was made in 2005 to move ahead with it but as reported to Troy on the openafs-devel list in May 2006, there were significant numbers of bugs in 1.4.0 release that had to be fixed for 1.4.1. The volunteer cycles to work on rxgk was lost to that effort. In January 2007 an "rxgk" specific week long hackathon was held at Stockholm University. Significant progress was made in scoping out the protocol requirements, the operational deployment requirements, and the paths for upgrading from rxkad to rxgk. The second draft implementation of rxgk was created during this hackathon and committed to Arla. However, there was no functional code nor was there a complete protocol specification. The YFS rxgk implementation and protocol specification is a third design which differs in significant ways from the outcome of the Stockholm University hackathon. The differences are the result of in-depth protocol review and implementation experience. Creating the rxgk security class itself was the smallest part of the work. The bigger challenge is the integration of rxgk into the source tree. In order to accomplish it all services must be converted to pthreads since there is no LWP GSS-API implementation. References to rxkad had to be isolated. The rx security class interfaces had to be turned into opaques. New credential management interfaces had to be developed. Library management had to be converted to libtool. The DES crypto implementation was replaced by an RFC3961 Crypto Framework derived from a refactored Heimdal. Many other things as well. The vast majority of this is work is already upstream but the point I am trying to make is that the commitment to implementing rxgk was a commitment to writing an open ended check. Opened ended checks are required for many OpenAFS projects. The Windows native redirector is perfect example. The proof of concept implementation was $280,000. The first production version shipped as 1.7.1 required well over $1 million. The next major revision will probably cost another $500,000. Most of the OpenAFS feature enhancements that are desired require substantial open ended commitments. Corporate development contracts and open ended research and development are simply not a good match. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature