Yes and contrary to the pure FUD that has been spread around, the AlmaLinux OS Foundation is in fact a 501©6 non-profit and our governing board includes a leadership from diverse backgrounds, some from industry and even Simon Phipps, former president and current standard & policy director at the Open Source Initiative. We strongly feel like the scientific community needs a seat at the table as well.
We set this up precisely to prevent the mistakes of the past and any “acquisition.” The project is open to any and all, forever to own and participate in. This model works well as it allows for transparent operations, communal ownership as well as a mechanism through which corporations can sponsor the ongoing efforts of the Foundation. We are in the process or re-doing the website and we will publish a page on the board and its members, including meeting minutes when they happen, etc. Jack > On May 4, 2021, at 16:33, Mark Rousell <markrlon...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > On 04/05/2021 20:51, James M. Pulver wrote: >> Honestly, I've seen a lot of the FLOSS community prefer Rocky over Alma, and >> I think it's because Rocky is actually not backed by any company. However, >> we see how that went before, and I just think Rocky as described is ripe for >> CENTOS 2.0 to me. It's even run by one of the CENTOS founders, so -- maybe >> he's learned his lesson, but I don't see that as a positive for Rocky - it's >> neutral at best. I mean, CENTOS was bought by Red Hat and then "killed". > Didn't the founder of Rocky leave CentOS before it was 'bought' by Red Hat? > My understanding is that both Alma and Rocky are getting foundations set up > to support and own them, making it much harder for them to either be bought > out or acquihired. > > As I understand it, CentOS was not 'bought' as such by Red Hat because there > was no single entity to buy. What Red Hat did (as I understand it) was to > hire all the key developers and then independently buy the rights to > trademarks and IP, etc. > > A proper foundation structure with a defined constitution/mission should in > theory protect against that kind of buy out/acquihire. Even if all the future > key developers are hired by a competitor, the software, trademarks, IP, etc. > will not be so easily purchased. > >
