Its not a business. It is a non profit. My first thought was applicability of a business plan, because to me, this means "how will we remain solvent?" Which is answered "by soliciting donations to our non profits."
So I looked up the definition of Business Plan : A business plan is a formal statement of a set of business goals, the reasons why they are believed attainable, and the plan for reaching those ..
Ok, we have a goal : "enabling the exchange of code and understanding among software companies and open source communities".
That is the stated goal. The existence of the contribution agreement and the license agreement suggest two specific things to achieve that goal, but I will not allow their existence to prevent me from considering others.
The reasons why these goals are attainable should be obvious given the 10 year history of OSI and the 20 year history of the FSF.
The third item, the plan for reaching those goals is unknown. I think this is a good thing.
If a plan were launched with announcement it would guide the foundation in that direction. I love that they launched with such a wide open goal.
In order to maintain transparency and instill confidence in the greater open source community a list of plans for reaching goals should be compiled while in parallel pursuing a leadership board. No plan should be executed by the existing board until their current plan is completed. The only currently publicly announced plan of action that I have heard is finding the first board to replace the current interim board.
All that said, now is the time to suggest things for this foundation to do. Lets hear what you would like to see the foundation do. -- Jay R. Wren
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:40 AM, johnvpetersen <johnvpeter...@gmail.com>wrote:
Reach out to the coordinators of the projects commonly used in an "alt.net " application stack and guage their level of interest, inventory conflicts and reservations, and get a sense of what steps would take place to form a critical mass of cpf based projects?
On Sep 17, 2009, at 9:07 AM, "Jay R. Wren" <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its not a business. It is a non profit. My first thought was > applicability of a business plan, because to me, this means "how > will we remain solvent?" Which is answered "by soliciting donations > to our non profits."
> So I looked up the definition of Business Plan : A business plan is > a formal statement of a set of business goals, the reasons why they > are believed attainable, and the plan for reaching those ..
> Ok, we have a goal : "enabling the exchange of code and > understanding among software companies and open source communities".
> That is the stated goal. The existence of the contribution agreement > and the license agreement suggest two specific things to achieve > that goal, but I will not allow their existence to prevent me from > considering others.
> The reasons why these goals are attainable should be obvious given > the 10 year history of OSI and the 20 year history of the FSF.
> The third item, the plan for reaching those goals is unknown. I > think this is a good thing.
> If a plan were launched with announcement it would guide the > foundation in that direction. I love that they launched with such a > wide open goal.
> In order to maintain transparency and instill confidence in the > greater open source community a list of plans for reaching goals > should be compiled while in parallel pursuing a leadership board. No > plan should be executed by the existing board until their current > plan is completed. The only currently publicly announced plan of > action that I have heard is finding the first board to replace the > current interim board.
> All that said, now is the time to suggest things for this foundation > to do. Lets hear what you would like to see the foundation do. > -- > Jay R. Wren
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:40 AM, johnvpetersen <johnvpeter...@gmail.com > > wrote:
These two terms are not mutually exclusive. The most successful non-profits are run as business. And in this case, funds from a public corporation are being used as initial seed capital for operations. It better be run as a business.... And given that intellectual property rights are involved, it goes more to why it needs to be run like a business.
I have already articulated what I would like to see the foundation do...but I will do so again here.
1. Operate with the same approach that Apache/Mozilla operates (support services, tech/legal, etc) and; 2. While being open to all tech, have a stated purpose that it will focus on the Windows/.NET Platform (that is something that is not out there today).
At the WAN Party, Britt Johnson (board member) stated that the role of the foundation is to "facilitate" - but did not give specifics. IMO, facilitation on the part of the OSS involve the kinds of things Ayende has already stated.
We are not talking about an unknown problem here. The operations of such entities is fairly well known. The irony here is that the first rule of OSS is to not come up with your license scheme - to not reinvent the wheel. And yet here, it appears the CodePlex Foundation is trying to do just that - reinvent the wheel. The big problem of course is that there is little in the way of specifics - which leads to a lot of questions by us on the outside.
In terms of a business plan, it is much more than a statement of purpose. It also involves operational facts as well. I am not saying it has to be all that elaborate... More than anything, I simply suggesting the idea and approach be adopted.
Just my 2 cents on where I think things should go...
JVP
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its not a business. It is a non profit. My first thought was applicability > of a business plan, because to me, this means "how will we remain solvent?" > Which is answered "by soliciting donations to our non profits."
> So I looked up the definition of Business Plan : A business plan is a > formal statement of a set of business goals, the reasons why they are > believed attainable, and the plan for reaching those ..
> Ok, we have a goal : "enabling the exchange of code and understanding among > software companies and open source communities".
> That is the stated goal. The existence of the contribution agreement and > the license agreement suggest two specific things to achieve that goal, but > I will not allow their existence to prevent me from considering others.
> The reasons why these goals are attainable should be obvious given the 10 > year history of OSI and the 20 year history of the FSF.
> The third item, the plan for reaching those goals is unknown. I think this > is a good thing.
> If a plan were launched with announcement it would guide the foundation in > that direction. I love that they launched with such a wide open goal.
> In order to maintain transparency and instill confidence in the greater > open source community a list of plans for reaching goals should be compiled > while in parallel pursuing a leadership board. No plan should be executed by > the existing board until their current plan is completed. The only currently > publicly announced plan of action that I have heard is finding the first > board to replace the current interim board.
> All that said, now is the time to suggest things for this foundation to do. > Lets hear what you would like to see the foundation do. > -- > Jay R. Wren
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:40 AM, johnvpetersen <johnvpeter...@gmail.com>wrote:
I'm just curious on where you think we're "reinventing the wheel". We
aren't proliferating a new open source license, and indeed are license-
agnostic. And I don't think there's a lot of precedent for the model
license and contribution agreements we're offering. So I don't see the
duplication; am I missing something?
As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the
places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other
foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology
challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers,
or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes
that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source
projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a
technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to
offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to
other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET
developers.
Mark Stone
Deputy Director
The CodePlex Foundation
When I say re-inventing the wheel, I refer to the lack of specifics. It probably has to do more with not having a good grasp on what the concrete goals of the CPF are. In terms of the agreements on line, there is a good amount of similarity to other licenses. That said, my comments are not really directed to the licenses themselves. What I am getting at is the core purpose and functionality of the foundation. From my perspective, if I don't see anything that clearly differentiates one thing from another and if there are a lack of specifics, I default to concluding that other, more established actors i the space would be a better alternative. i.e., what is the compelling reason to go with option A over B. In those cases, the similarities are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what differentiates the two.
In terms of your comment:
<< What we need are processes that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET developers. <<
In principle...I agree with you.
Now... Let's break it down:
<< What we need are processes that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source projects. <<
How specifically will CPF make it easier for developers to participate in open space projects. Using NHibernate as an example, I can reach out to Ayende, Steve Bohlen, et al. today if I have a patch to submit. The landscape is replete with info on how to get involved... If I want to submit a plugin for jQuery, the roadmap is very clear on that as well.
And by the way, I agree with you that it is a business/process problem...not a tech problem. That is why I called for a business plan.
Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET developers. <<
Progess is in the eye of the beholder. If there is a compelling reason to adopt solutions ,then yes, I agree those would have a great chance at adoption in other areas. And yes, I agree that the targets should be platform/technology agnostic. The key of course is to actually solve a problem. That is where the rubber meets the road.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
> I'm just curious on where you think we're "reinventing the wheel". We > aren't proliferating a new open source license, and indeed are license- > agnostic. And I don't think there's a lot of precedent for the model > license and contribution agreements we're offering. So I don't see the > duplication; am I missing something?
> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the > places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other > foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology > challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, > or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes > that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source > projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a > technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to > offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to > other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET > developers.
> Mark Stone > Deputy Director > The CodePlex Foundation
Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for me?
If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the > places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other > foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology > challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, > or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes > that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source > projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a > technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to > offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to > other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET > developers.
> Mark Stone > Deputy Director > The CodePlex Foundation
He hits the nail on the head re: the need for something like CodePlex should be about .NET projects having a place to live. Seems to me this is a good place to start. I wish the CodePlex Foundation would embrace this notion.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
> I'm just curious on where you think we're "reinventing the wheel". We > aren't proliferating a new open source license, and indeed are license- > agnostic. And I don't think there's a lot of precedent for the model > license and contribution agreements we're offering. So I don't see the > duplication; am I missing something?
> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the > places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other > foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology > challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, > or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes > that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source > projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a > technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to > offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to > other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET > developers.
> Mark Stone > Deputy Director > The CodePlex Foundation
But not everyone lives in Israel. Snowshoes might be a handy thing to have for some. What I'm seeing is that those that ARE involved in OSS don't see any benefit since they already are there. The benefit may be to those that want to be involved but may not have the cache of knowledge to get involved.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. > And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for > me?
> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I would > decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am > having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >> developers.
>> Mark Stone >> Deputy Director >> The CodePlex Foundation
In which case, you have more or less the chicken & egg problem. If the CPF can't offer much to existing projects, it isn't likely it it going to get much traction.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Jay Glynn <jlsgl...@gmail.com> wrote: > But not everyone lives in Israel. Snowshoes might be a handy thing to have > for some. What I'm seeing is that those that ARE involved in OSS don't see > any benefit since they already are there. The benefit may be to those that > want to be involved but may not have the cache of knowledge to get involved.
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >> me?
>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I would >> decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>> developers.
>>> Mark Stone >>> Deputy Director >>> The CodePlex Foundation
Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge things in it for me.
I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's "truth")
Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do risk analysis and recommendations on them.
Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they definitely did.
The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is generally safe from patent infringement.
Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would have incurred otherwise.
I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to sit on a non-Linux centric board. -- Jay R. Wren
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. > And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for > me?
> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I would > decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am > having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >> developers.
>> Mark Stone >> Deputy Director >> The CodePlex Foundation
I disagree. If the foundation is just an educational outreach for businesses fearing OSS, what incentive does the developer of said OSS project have for aligning themselves with the same? I believe the original intent of the Foundation was to help spur open source development by providing an umbrella under which the OSS developer could practice with less FUD. If businesses are afraid to use OSS, they don't need an "education," they simply need to learn how to read the license agreement. Your approach is too business oriented for a developer wishing to align themselves with the foundation. The point of the foundation is that its credibility alone (and alignment with corporations) should on its own provide incentive enough for businesses to use the projects the foundation sponsors. I would have to agree with Ayende: what is in it for me (the lowly developer without whom there would be no discussion of this nature at all)?
> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge > things in it for me.
> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard education > plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's "truth")
> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects (NHibernate, > Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do risk analysis > and recommendations on them.
> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive > licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- > does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright > the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they > definitely did.
> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations > regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about > ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is > generally safe from patent infringement.
> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile open > source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they are > using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would > have incurred otherwise.
> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the > Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also > recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to > sit on a non-Linux centric board. > -- > Jay R. Wren
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >> me?
>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I would >> decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>> developers.
>>> Mark Stone >>> Deputy Director >>> The CodePlex Foundation
The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is generally safe from patent infringement.
-----------------------------------
Jay, did you follow the Firestar software case? That had some interesting subsequent history. In a nutshell, Red Hat was sued by Firestar of infringment of its [Firestar's] orm patent, which apparently, was very broad. Sun came in as a white knight of sorts and demonstrated to the USPTO that Firestar's claims were in part, based on prior art from Sun. The result, I believe Firestar's patent was invalidated. Not sure about that. The point here is that a lot of the software patents that have been granted, that if prosecuted, would likely not stand scrutiny. The old saying, be careful what you ask for. You may be out there prosecuting your patent only to find your patent wasn't really legit to begin with!!
So with that, I don't see patent exposure being that much of a big deal.
What you are suggesting in essense, is that the the CPF run legal interference for its projects. That in principle, I agree with.
JVP
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge > things in it for me.
> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard > education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's > "truth")
> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects (NHibernate, > Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do risk analysis > and recommendations on them.
> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive > licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- > does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright > the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they > definitely did.
> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations > regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about > ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is > generally safe from patent infringement.
> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile open > source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they are > using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would > have incurred otherwise.
> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the > Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also > recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to > sit on a non-Linux centric board. > -- > Jay R. Wren
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >> me?
>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I would >> decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>> developers.
>>> Mark Stone >>> Deputy Director >>> The CodePlex Foundation
That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows weaker as time goes by anyway. Let me try to make this clearer.
From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is in a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use of it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high quality base to work from. Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
From the project side: We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS fearing businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge > things in it for me.
> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard > education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's > "truth")
> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects (NHibernate, > Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do risk analysis > and recommendations on them.
> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive > licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- > does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright > the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they > definitely did.
> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations > regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about > ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is > generally safe from patent infringement.
> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile open > source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they are > using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would > have incurred otherwise.
> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the > Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also > recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to > sit on a non-Linux centric board. > -- > Jay R. Wren
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >> me?
>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I would >> decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>> developers.
>>> Mark Stone >>> Deputy Director >>> The CodePlex Foundation
So what you are saying is that system, as is, takes care of these issues. For business, it is already in their self interest to use OSS. And for projects, they already have everything they need. On both counts, CPF, or any other foundation for that matter, brings nothing to the table and there, is not needed.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows weaker > as time goes by anyway. > Let me try to make this clearer.
> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is in > a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use of > it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high quality > base to work from. > Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. > The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. > Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 > companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
> From the project side: > We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS fearing > businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >> things in it for me.
>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >> "truth")
>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects (NHibernate, >> Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do risk analysis >> and recommendations on them.
>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >> definitely did.
>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >> generally safe from patent infringement.
>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile open >> source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they are >> using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >> have incurred otherwise.
>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the >> Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >> -- >> Jay R. Wren
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >>> me?
>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>> developers.
>>>> Mark Stone >>>> Deputy Director >>>> The CodePlex Foundation
Yes it is their loss, so wouldn't it be nice to have a place where they can be educated in that competitive advantage? I worked for a company that had a no OSS rule. They supposedly had many reasons, but if they were able to be educated and had some of their concerns put to rest, then what is that a bad thing? Some larger companies aren't going to listem to you or me or any OOS dev, but they may listen to an organization that has other corporations behind it.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows weaker > as time goes by anyway. > Let me try to make this clearer.
> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is in > a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use of > it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high quality > base to work from. > Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. > The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. > Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 > companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
> From the project side: > We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS fearing > businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >> things in it for me.
>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >> "truth")
>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects (NHibernate, >> Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do risk analysis >> and recommendations on them.
>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >> definitely did.
>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >> generally safe from patent infringement.
>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile open >> source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they are >> using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >> have incurred otherwise.
>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the >> Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >> -- >> Jay R. Wren
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >>> me?
>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>> developers.
>>>> Mark Stone >>>> Deputy Director >>>> The CodePlex Foundation
Pretty much, yes. It would be more accurate that I don't feel any pain if a business decide not to use a project of mine. Remember that unlike commercial software, OSS projects don't really have an incentive to "sell" more & more.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM, John Petersen <johnvpeter...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So what you are saying is that system, as is, takes care of these issues. > For business, it is already in their self interest to use OSS. And for > projects, they already have everything they need. On both counts, CPF, or > any other foundation for that matter, brings nothing to the table and there, > is not needed.
> Does that accurately reflect your argument?
> JVP
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>> That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows >> weaker as time goes by anyway. >> Let me try to make this clearer.
>> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is in >> a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use of >> it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high quality >> base to work from. >> Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. >> The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. >> Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 >> companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
>> From the project side: >> We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS fearing >> businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >>> things in it for me.
>>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >>> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >>> "truth")
>>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects >>> (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do >>> risk analysis and recommendations on them.
>>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >>> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >>> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >>> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >>> definitely did.
>>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >>> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >>> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >>> generally safe from patent infringement.
>>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile >>> open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they >>> are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >>> have incurred otherwise.
>>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the >>> Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >>> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >>> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >>> -- >>> Jay R. Wren
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote:
>>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >>>> me?
>>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>>> developers.
>>>>> Mark Stone >>>>> Deputy Director >>>>> The CodePlex Foundation
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Jay Glynn <jlsgl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes it is their loss, so wouldn't it be nice to have a place where they can > be educated in that competitive advantage? I worked for a company that had a > no OSS rule. They supposedly had many reasons, but if they were able to be > educated and had some of their concerns put to rest, then what is that a bad > thing? Some larger companies aren't going to listem to you or me or any OOS > dev, but they may listen to an organization that has other corporations > behind it.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>> That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows >> weaker as time goes by anyway. >> Let me try to make this clearer.
>> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is in >> a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use of >> it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high quality >> base to work from. >> Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. >> The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. >> Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 >> companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
>> From the project side: >> We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS fearing >> businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >>> things in it for me.
>>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >>> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >>> "truth")
>>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects >>> (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do >>> risk analysis and recommendations on them.
>>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >>> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >>> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >>> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >>> definitely did.
>>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >>> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >>> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >>> generally safe from patent infringement.
>>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile >>> open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they >>> are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >>> have incurred otherwise.
>>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the >>> Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >>> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >>> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >>> -- >>> Jay R. Wren
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote:
>>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >>>> me?
>>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>>> developers.
>>>>> Mark Stone >>>>> Deputy Director >>>>> The CodePlex Foundation
A different Fortune 50 company is willing to pay you five times your normal consulting rate. You pursue the opportunity only to find out that they are ill informed and have a "no OSS" rule.
This is what is in it for you, less likely hood of you running into the bad part of this scenario and being able to experience the good part of this scenario.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > Jay, > It goes back to my original question: What is in it for me? > Haven't heard an answer yet.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Jay Glynn <jlsgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes it is their loss, so wouldn't it be nice to have a place where they >> can be educated in that competitive advantage? I worked for a company that >> had a no OSS rule. They supposedly had many reasons, but if they were able >> to be educated and had some of their concerns put to rest, then what is that >> a bad thing? Some larger companies aren't going to listem to you or me or >> any OOS dev, but they may listen to an organization that has other >> corporations behind it.
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>>> That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows >>> weaker as time goes by anyway. >>> Let me try to make this clearer.
>>> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is >>> in a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use >>> of it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high >>> quality base to work from. >>> Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. >>> The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. >>> Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 >>> companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
>>> From the project side: >>> We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS >>> fearing businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >>>> things in it for me.
>>>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >>>> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >>>> "truth")
>>>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects >>>> (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do >>>> risk analysis and recommendations on them.
>>>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >>>> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >>>> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >>>> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >>>> definitely did.
>>>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >>>> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >>>> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >>>> generally safe from patent infringement.
>>>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile >>>> open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they >>>> are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >>>> have incurred otherwise.
>>>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than >>>> the Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >>>> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >>>> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >>>> -- >>>> Jay R. Wren
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote:
>>>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>>>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it >>>>> for me?
>>>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>>>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>>>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>>>> developers.
>>>>>> Mark Stone >>>>>> Deputy Director >>>>>> The CodePlex Foundation
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > Pretty much, yes. > It would be more accurate that I don't feel any pain if a business decide > not to use a project of mine. > Remember that unlike commercial software, OSS projects don't really have an > incentive to "sell" more & more.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM, John Petersen <johnvpeter...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Ayende..
>> So what you are saying is that system, as is, takes care of these issues. >> For business, it is already in their self interest to use OSS. And for >> projects, they already have everything they need. On both counts, CPF, or >> any other foundation for that matter, brings nothing to the table and there, >> is not needed.
>> Does that accurately reflect your argument?
>> JVP
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>>> That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows >>> weaker as time goes by anyway. >>> Let me try to make this clearer.
>>> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is >>> in a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use >>> of it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high >>> quality base to work from. >>> Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. >>> The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. >>> Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 >>> companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
>>> From the project side: >>> We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS >>> fearing businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >>>> things in it for me.
>>>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >>>> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >>>> "truth")
>>>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects >>>> (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do >>>> risk analysis and recommendations on them.
>>>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >>>> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >>>> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >>>> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >>>> definitely did.
>>>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >>>> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >>>> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >>>> generally safe from patent infringement.
>>>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile >>>> open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they >>>> are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >>>> have incurred otherwise.
>>>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than >>>> the Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >>>> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >>>> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >>>> -- >>>> Jay R. Wren
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote:
>>>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>>>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it >>>>> for me?
>>>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>>>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>>>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>>>> developers.
>>>>>> Mark Stone >>>>>> Deputy Director >>>>>> The CodePlex Foundation
Ayende, I apologize, but going to put words in your mouth to see if they fit.
Is it true that for you don't care about any of the following: * Getting more contributors to your project * Increasing the velocity of adoption of your project
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > Jay, > It goes back to my original question: What is in it for me? > Haven't heard an answer yet.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Jay Glynn <jlsgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes it is their loss, so wouldn't it be nice to have a place where they >> can be educated in that competitive advantage? I worked for a company that >> had a no OSS rule. They supposedly had many reasons, but if they were able >> to be educated and had some of their concerns put to rest, then what is that >> a bad thing? Some larger companies aren't going to listem to you or me or >> any OOS dev, but they may listen to an organization that has other >> corporations behind it.
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>>> That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows >>> weaker as time goes by anyway. >>> Let me try to make this clearer.
>>> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is >>> in a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use >>> of it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high >>> quality base to work from. >>> Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. >>> The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. >>> Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 >>> companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
>>> From the project side: >>> We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS >>> fearing businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >>>> things in it for me.
>>>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >>>> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >>>> "truth")
>>>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects >>>> (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do >>>> risk analysis and recommendations on them.
>>>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >>>> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >>>> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >>>> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >>>> definitely did.
>>>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >>>> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >>>> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >>>> generally safe from patent infringement.
>>>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile >>>> open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they >>>> are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >>>> have incurred otherwise.
>>>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than >>>> the Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >>>> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >>>> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >>>> -- >>>> Jay R. Wren
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote:
>>>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>>>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it >>>>> for me?
>>>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>>>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>>>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>>>> developers.
>>>>>> Mark Stone >>>>>> Deputy Director >>>>>> The CodePlex Foundation
Well, I guess the point of OSS is to develop software for other people to use. This would porentially get more people inline to use some of the fruits of your labor. To say there is no monetary gain for more people using your software would be naive and short sighted. You can't tell me that because of your work on various OSS projects that you haven't benefited from a speaking engagement, an article on MSDN, etc etc etc. That's what's in it for you.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > Jay, > It goes back to my original question: What is in it for me? > Haven't heard an answer yet.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Jay Glynn <jlsgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes it is their loss, so wouldn't it be nice to have a place where they >> can be educated in that competitive advantage? I worked for a company that >> had a no OSS rule. They supposedly had many reasons, but if they were able >> to be educated and had some of their concerns put to rest, then what is that >> a bad thing? Some larger companies aren't going to listem to you or me or >> any OOS dev, but they may listen to an organization that has other >> corporations behind it.
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>>> That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows >>> weaker as time goes by anyway. >>> Let me try to make this clearer.
>>> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is >>> in a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use >>> of it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high >>> quality base to work from. >>> Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. >>> The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. >>> Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 >>> companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
>>> From the project side: >>> We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS >>> fearing businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >>>> things in it for me.
>>>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >>>> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >>>> "truth")
>>>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects >>>> (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do >>>> risk analysis and recommendations on them.
>>>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >>>> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >>>> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >>>> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >>>> definitely did.
>>>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >>>> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >>>> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >>>> generally safe from patent infringement.
>>>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile >>>> open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they >>>> are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >>>> have incurred otherwise.
>>>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than >>>> the Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >>>> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >>>> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >>>> -- >>>> Jay R. Wren
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote:
>>>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>>>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it >>>>> for me?
>>>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>>>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>>>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>>>> developers.
>>>>>> Mark Stone >>>>>> Deputy Director >>>>>> The CodePlex Foundation
Jay said: so wouldn't it be nice to have a place where they can be educated in that competitive advantage? ---------------------- Picking up on Ayende's point... nice for whom? Business already has an incentive to pickup the mantle here. If they don't, perhaps they won't be around for long - especially if their competitors do pick up the mantle.
This all depends on whether you view this from a OSS centric or business centric view. Seems to me, this has to be viewed from an OSS-centic view. If business gets a clue as a by-product of some OSS-centric initiative - great. At the end of the day however, if it is OSS-centic, then it necessarily has to answer the question of what is in it for the project.
I certainly don't presume to speak for Ayende here..but that is my take on his point. I am also not suggesting that his specific opinion s/b used as a proxy for the OSS-project POV. I would be interested in Jeremy's and Steve's comments on this specific point.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Jay Glynn <jlsgl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes it is their loss, so wouldn't it be nice to have a place where they can > be educated in that competitive advantage? I worked for a company that had a > no OSS rule. They supposedly had many reasons, but if they were able to be > educated and had some of their concerns put to rest, then what is that a bad > thing? Some larger companies aren't going to listem to you or me or any OOS > dev, but they may listen to an organization that has other corporations > behind it.
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
>> That is not a problem that the OSS projects are facing. And it grows >> weaker as time goes by anyway. >> Let me try to make this clearer.
>> From the business side: if a business don't want to use OSS, then it is in >> a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors that do make use of >> it. OSS projects tend to make great infrastructure and generate high quality >> base to work from. >> Having to develop things in house cost, a lot. >> The Java side has demonstrated that quite clearly. >> Even in the .Net world, I can tell you that I am aware of Fortune 50 >> companies making use of things like NHibernate or Castle.
>> From the project side: >> We got enough attention that we don't actually worry about the OSS fearing >> businesses. It is their loss, it is not ours.
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ayende, there might not be anything in it for you, but I could see huge >>> things in it for me.
>>> I consult for OSS fearing businesses. CFP could develop a standard >>> education plan. The truth about open source. (and I don't mean Balmer's >>> "truth")
>>> Further, the CFP could identify certain high profile projects >>> (NHibernate, Castle, StructureMap, Ninject, NUnit, Moq, Rhino, etc) and do >>> risk analysis and recommendations on them.
>>> Quite often the business risk is not copyright. Copyright permissive >>> licenses like BSD, Apache2 and MIT/X11 make copyright largely a nonissue -- >>> does MSFT still ship Windows with a "portions of this software are copyright >>> the Regents of the University of California Berkley" ? Because they >>> definitely did.
>>> The risk issue is with patent exposure. CFP could make recommendations >>> regarding this. e.g. CFP could make a general statements "no patents about >>> ORMs have been taken to court." and suggest generally that NHibernate is >>> generally safe from patent infringement.
>>> Further, CFP could sell patent indemnification for these high profile >>> open source projects. This would benefit the businesses greatly. Now they >>> are using open source software with out much of the previous risk they would >>> have incurred otherwise.
>>> I'd like to see CFP be more like the work of Linux International than the >>> Apache Foundation. Educate and help business adopt open source. I'd also >>> recommend John "maddog" Hall as a board member, if he would be willing to >>> sit on a non-Linux centric board. >>> -- >>> Jay R. Wren
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote:
>>>> Then you are solving a problem that doesn't exists in the .NET world. >>>> And this goes all the way back to my initial question: What is in it for >>>> me?
>>>> If some guy comes to me and offer to hand me a pair of snow shoes, I >>>> would decline them. I live in Israel, snow shoes are not a problem that I am >>>> having, and the shoes would only take up space in my closet.
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> As for the focus on the Windows/.NET platform: I think one of the >>>>> places where the CodePlex Foundation will differ from other >>>>> foundations is in being focused on business challenges, not technology >>>>> challenges. Personally, I don't see that we need more .NET developers, >>>>> or even more .NET open source developers. What we need are processes >>>>> that make it easier for those developers to participate in open source >>>>> projects. And that process problem is really a business problem, not a >>>>> technology problem. Any progress we make, any solutions we are able to >>>>> offer in the way of business process, are likely to be applicable to >>>>> other open source communities as well, not just the community of .NET >>>>> developers.
>>>>> Mark Stone >>>>> Deputy Director >>>>> The CodePlex Foundation
Jay, I am OSS guy from the inception of my professional career. About 95% of my income comes directly or indirectly from OSS related work.
The scenario that you just described never happened to me. Oh, I had to talk with the business a lot of time. It is easy to show them why OSS is the safer choice.
I can point out stats like this: http://www.ohloh.net/p/nhibernate That trying to build something like NH is going to cost you in the order of 130 years and ~15 millions. I can tell them that going with MS data access method is a good way to throw good money at upgrading their data access methodology every two years. I can point them to a whole host of people making good use of it.
I may need to talk to the lawyers, but that has generally been a pretty straightforward deal.
So no, I don't lose clients because of no OSS rule.
Beside, you know what, if they are willing to pay me 5 times my normal rate, I am going to be very explicit about making my preferences made and explaining the benefits. Afterward, they are the client, if they want to may me gobs of money, I am not going to complain even if I am going to use NIH as the root namespace.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Jay R. Wren <jrw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A different Fortune 50 company is willing to pay you five times your normal > consulting rate. You pursue the opportunity only to find out that they are > ill informed and have a "no OSS" rule.
> This is what is in it for you, less likely hood of you running into the bad > part of this scenario and being able to experience the good part of this > scenario.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Aaron Weiker <aa...@weiker.org> wrote: > Ayende, > I apologize, but going to put words in your mouth to see if they fit.
> Is it true that for you don't care about any of the following: > * Getting more contributors to your project
That is a more complex question. It depend on what kind of project it is, what my investment and plans for it are. As a good example, I have a lot of stuff that I put out as one-use only solutions. Rhino Igloo is a good example of that. It is a WebForms MVC framework that we needed for a single project. I built it as OSS, we get contributions for it once in a while. But if it gets to be *very* active, I am going to find myself in a problem, because I don't really want to maintain it anymore.
But in general, for most projects I *want* to have more contributers. It is just that I don't find that the problems that were brought up has any relevance whatsoever to getting more contributers. By far, most contributions that we get for my projects are from people making commercial use of them.
* Increasing the velocity of adoption of your project
Pass a certain point? Nope. I have ~15 - 20 OSS projects that I either founded or am a member of, in exactly one of them I cared about adoption (Rhino Mocks), and that was 5 years ago, mainly because I thought it would give me some credentials when I was looking for a job (it did).
I am working on OSS to solve a problem, the number of users in a project isn't something that I really care about.
