Answering the question of what...

[johnvpetersen]

IMO, the most significant question to answer is what precisely will
the CPF do? When you consider other entities such as the Apache
Foundation are out there today, it necessarily begs the question of
what will the new CPF do? What will it do that is complimentary, the
same, different, etc? I have participated in two WAN Parties and the
basic questions are the same - what will the CPF do for me? And often,
the questions get specific - such as - will the CPF follow the Apache
Foundation Model? I certainly don't know the answer to these
questions. But, if I had input, I would suggest one of the tasks of
the CPF is to be another alternative that people can choose when
looking for a home for their projects. I would like it to be the
primary portal for support, patch submission etc. Certainly, there
will be other outlets for support. While I can usually find my answers
as to one piece of software or another, there is no one consistently
best place for those answers. It would be nice if the CPF served as
that hub. And yes, there should be a commitment for the CPF to step in
an prosecute patents/copyrights when warranted. This is something that
most individuals cannot do on their own. This is precisely why a legal
entity with significant financial backing is necessary. This is the
kind of organization, IMO, the CPF needs to be.

Just my initial 2-cents on the matter. Having a group like this is a
great idea.

<JVP>

[Mark]

John: There's a lot to admire about the Apache Software Foundation and
how they have organized their projects. Certainly the CodePlex
Foundation team has taken other open source foundations into
consideration in the planning process. Ultimately, though, the
CodePlex Foundation is complimentary to, and not an alternative to,
other foundations.

In other words: we expect the CodePlex Foundation will not compete for
projects with the Apache Software Foundation, but will instead make it
easy for commercial software developers to contribute to Apache
Software Foundation projects (and other projects).

We've looked at the processes and licensing concerns of software
companies and believe that there's room for a different approach in
the mix that will benefit the software industry and the open source
community. Our model agreements are a starting point down that path.
Some trial and error will no doubt be involved. We'll learn alot from
the first few projects we actually handle. But we're excited by the
opportunity and believe there is definitely a place for the CodePlex
Foundation.

-Mark Stone
Deputy Director
The CodePlex Foundation

[johnvpetersen]

>>
, but will instead make it
easy for commercial software developers to contribute to Apache
Software Foundation projects (and other projects).
>>

But what does that mean? Put it this way, let's say I am a commercial
sw dev and I want to contribute code and/or one of my projects to the
Apache Foundation? I can do that today if I want. How will CodePlex
make that process easier. Isn't up to each foundation to define their
own roadmaps?

I am now more confused than ever.... Simply put, you are not making a
compelling case for CodePlex's existence.

It seems to me that one striking difference would be to simply say
that CodePlex is focusing on OSS projects that focus on the Windows//
NET space - and at the same time - be open to all technologies. I
don't get the no compete aspect. Seems to me, folks will pick one or
the other based on a variety of factors. Also, it is up to the
respective foundation to accept the project or not. Further, it seems
to me that the CodePlex Foundation is working to suppress the very
thing it is...a group that springs from a space that is dominated by
the Windows/.NET platform. We have needed such an organization.
CodePlex should embrace that.

JVP

[scott...@gmail.com]

So the CodePlex Foundation is basically Tom Smykowski from Office
Space. You take the projects from the developer and hand them to the
ASF? "I HAVE PEOPLE SKILLS!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGSCSQCpz9Q

On Sep 16, 9:28 am, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words: we expect the CodePlex Foundation will not compete for
> projects with the Apache Software Foundation, but will instead make it
> easy for commercial software developers to contribute to Apache
> Software Foundation projects (and other projects).

[johnvpetersen]

Hi Mark..

I re-read my reply and I think my tone was a bit too harsh.. I really
do appreciate the effort you all are putting into this and I do
appreciate your collective involvement in taking feedback. So with
that, sorry for the harsh tone when I said you were not making the
case for CodePlex. Nonetheless, I do think there remains a good number
of questions that have to be answered so that when that first project
hits, CodePlex is ready. As always, I stand ready willing and able to
help out however I can. Again, thanks to you and the rest of the team.

JVP

On Sep 16, 12:28 pm, Mark <mark.st...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ayende Rahien]

To my knowledge, ASF has only 1 or 2 .NET projects

[Mark]

John said: "Put it this way, let's say I am a commercial sw dev and I

want to contribute code and/or one of my projects to the Apache
Foundation? I can do that today if I want."

If that's really the case, then you personally may not have a great
need for the CodePlex Foundation. My guess is most commercial sw devs
don't have that easy a time of it:
* They often sign a hiring agreement that may block them from
contributing to open source projects without their employer's
permission
* They may have difficulty getting permission to include open source
code in a product or project
* They may have difficulty getting permission to make contributions to
open source projects.

I think that's the world that most commerical sw devs live in.

Now look at it from management's perspective:
* One of their devs is proposing to have code they've written used
outside the company in an outside project, and potentially in a
competing project
* Or proposing to take code of uncertain (to the manager, anyway)
copyright and patent status, and use it in a product
* There's no vendor to negotiate with, just this largely
undifferentiated thing called the "open source community"
* And even if they're supportive of their dev getting involved in open
source, the manager likely has to approach the company legal team
about an exception to standard policy.

I think that's the world that most commercial sw managers and/or
product managers live in.

It doesn't have to be that hard. Open source projects would benefit
from greater participation by those commercial sw devs. Software
companies would benefit by greater participation in the amazing
innovation process that open source has driven. So how do we make it
easier?

One way -- certainly not the only way, but one way -- would be to put
a mediating entity in place that could interface with company
management on behalf of open source projects, and that could provide
an umbrella structure for devs to work on projects without management
feeling like their devs are just "out in the wild". If the CodePlex
Foundation can play that mediating role and reduce the friction on any
of those points I've just described (and a dozen more, no doubt) then
it has a reason to exist.

[John Petersen]

Which underscores there may be a need for a foundation that concentrates on the .NET space - but not to the exclusion of others. Perhaps it boils down to the need for an inverse of the Apache Foundation - as to representation.

JVP

[John Petersen]

There is nothing the CPF or any third party can do about that. There is a contract between entities that CodePlex is not a part of. Unless of course, it was written into the contracts that CodePlex would be a carve-out to the general rule that there is a prohibition on interfacing with OSS entities. Is that what your plan is for CodePlex? I don't see how CodePlex is going to be able to get involved in other private contracts?

Sounds like what you are describing is CodePlex becoming the common gateway for OSS dialog with business. At least, that is my take. If that is what you are describing, I think you are going to have an uphill battle on your hands.

JVP

[John Petersen]

Let me amplify my response a bit... What an employee can/cannot do is subject to several things - contract, at will statutes, copyright (work for hire doctrine) - etc. There is nothing the CPF foundation can do (or should try to do) that tries to intrude on that space. For example, an employee, in the course of his job, works on code. That code belongs to the employer. That is the work for hire doctine/agency doctrine in a nutshell. I don't see the CodePlex foundation swooping into that relationship to do the things that would make it palatable to allow the employee to contribute to OSS. The extent to which a company will do that will be based on the value proposition it presents. No third party entity, which includes CodePlex, will have a bearing on that evaluation.

I have re-read your post a few times. It appears clear to me that your viewpoint of CodePlex is that it should be the common clearinghouse for OSS that businesses would interact with. That to me, is not what an OSS foundation is all about. An OSS Foundation is about project sponsorship and supporting the project. Again, I will go back to Ayende's original comment and question...what's in it for the project???

Legally, I don't see where the idea presented here holds water. And from that, I don't see how it could make for a sound business.  For sure, Britt, at the WAN Party, did not articulate this sort of function.

All that said, if CodePlex wants to be there, ready to sponsor projects like other foundations to make it easier for adoption, I am all for that. The key is, it needs to be a service for OSS Projects. The projects already provide value. What you are talking about tends to make it more business-value centric -and as a result - puts the projects in a secondary tier. That may not be your intent, but that is the way it read to me.

JVP

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Mark <mark....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ayende Rahien]

inline

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Mark <mark....@gmail.com> wrote:

John said: "Put it this way, let's say I am a commercial sw dev and I
want to contribute code and/or one of my projects to the Apache
Foundation? I can do that today if I want."

If that's really the case, then you personally may not have a great
need for the CodePlex Foundation. My guess is most commercial sw devs
don't have that easy a time of it:
* They often sign a hiring agreement that may block them from
contributing to open source projects without their employer's
permission

FWIW, those are often illegal an unenforceable.
 

* They may have difficulty getting permission to include open source
code in a product or project

Happened rarely on the past, even more rarely now. The main problem wasn't legal, it was the .NET culture more than anything else.
The acceptance of OSS as a viable source of software had more to do with team leads and architects accepting that than any legal team putting hurdles in the path.
 

* They may have difficulty getting permission to make contributions to
open source projects.

Once OSS is adopted, I never run into an issue where legal stopped the contribution of a patch.
There are damn good reasons for the business to _want_ this, after all.
 

I think that's the world that most commerical sw devs live in.

Now look at it from management's perspective:
* One of their devs is proposing to have code they've written used
outside the company in an outside project, and potentially in a
competing project

*snort*
To that manager, I am going to say: "look, we can maintain it, or we give it to the project, they maintain/fix/debug/improve it. we get great credits and we gain a lot for work we would have done anyway"
 

* Or proposing to take code of uncertain (to the manager, anyway)
copyright and patent status, and use it in a product

See my previous point
 

* There's no vendor to negotiate with, just this largely
undifferentiated thing called the "open source community"

Not actually true. In most cases, if there is someone willing to pay, there is someone to talk to.
 

[John Petersen]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:

inline

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Mark <mark....@gmail.com> wrote:

John said: "Put it this way, let's say I am a commercial sw dev and I
want to contribute code and/or one of my projects to the Apache
Foundation? I can do that today if I want."

If that's really the case, then you personally may not have a great
need for the CodePlex Foundation. My guess is most commercial sw devs
don't have that easy a time of it:
* They often sign a hiring agreement that may block them from
contributing to open source projects without their employer's
permission

FWIW, those are often illegal an unenforceable.

                  JVP - That is not true... if the code in question falls under work product, then such an agreement is entirely enforceable...at least in the US it is enforceable.

[Ayende Rahien]

a/ don't assume just US perspective
b/ if this isn't done on company time, company equipment or using knowledge gained from working at the company, it is not something that the company can specify.

In other words, what I am doing in my own time is my own damn business. If you want to limit my freedom, there has better be some explicit compensation for that, or the section is going to be rejected in court.

[Aaron Weiker]

I have a very specific example where I want the foundation to help me. I work for Microsoft in the Services group. Some exec and legal person somewhere made a mandate that we are not allowed to use anything from http://www.codeplex.com/ unless we get explicit approval each and every time.

I want to be able to recommend and even contribute to these projects without this FUD. I feel that here is specifically a case where the foundation can help Microsoft and their enterprise customers adopt OSS.

-Aaron

[John Petersen]

I never assume US only... review my answer.... I'm a lawyer...I'm the last one to assume US only :) That said, this foundation is going to have a choice of law and forum selection clause that will put most of this under US law.  The real point is, CodePlex is not going to be able to intervene on other private contracts. I don't know where Mark was going with that...

Also, I mentioned that the context has to be under the "work product" doctrine...

JVP

[Ayende Rahien]

Aaron,
Microsoft approach to OSS is not something that I think can be generalized.
While I understand your difficulties (and sympathize, I had much the same problem when I did a contract for MS, leading for much annoyance), I don't see this as a general problem in the .NET industry outside of Microsoft.

[John Petersen]

>> I work for Microsoft in the Services group.

You work for MS?

Certainly, MS is free to alter its agreements. But as to it's enterprise customers...are you suggesting that MS get into the business of using the foundation as a vehicle to contribute OSS? If so, I think that would create significant problems with the notion of CodePlex being an independent entity.

JVP

[Stephen Bohlen]

I'm not so sure this (MS employees being more able to contribute to OSS if its a 'CodePlex' project) is all that far-fetched; wasn't there an announcement from MS alongside the CodePlex foundation mention that they were going to enable exactly that --?  (I may be misremembering however).

Steve Bohlen
sbo...@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

[Ayende Rahien]

Anything that you do for your employee on his dime is his (well, usually).
I don't think that anyone has a problem with it.

[John Petersen]

Ayende...

When you did contract work for MS - that was most likely work for hire. That vests copyright with MS.

In terms of it not being a general problem... that is a sticky question. It really gets to the issues of copyright and work for hire. Not nearly enough time for me to explain all of that here... :)

JVP

[Aaron Weiker]

There are two distinct (yet related things)

1) In an enterprise engagement with a customer I would like to be able to use the best tool(s) for the job. As we all know there are some tools that only exist in OSS form. SharePoint has a lot of these for example.

2) Given that item 1 is possible, I would like to be able to help make these tools even better by contributing code.

-Aaron

[Ayende Rahien]

There are many things wrong with the current MS OSS approach.
No external patches, for example.

[Stephen Bohlen]

Speaking again just for the U.S. (and I completely agree that this is a SMALL part of the OSS world, but also the jurisdiction under which CPF is near-certain to plant itself under), to my own knowledge there is plenty of case-law backing up employee agreements that essentially state that any professional work you create while under the employ of your employer (whether on their time, their equipment, etc. or not) is their work property.

These laws also vary considerably by STATE even within the US, but there is significant precedent for upholding this kind of agreement, whether explicit compensation for the off-hours work is given or not.  Its usually under the auspices of 'disoveries' or 'inventions' but AFAIK it has been extended to written software in at least one or more actual cases.

Steve Bohlen
sbo...@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

[Ayende Rahien]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:38 PM, John Petersen <johnvp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ayende...

When you did contract work for MS - that was most likely work for hire. That vests copyright with MS.

Yep, and it was explicitly stated and understood on both sides.
I happened to be working on an OSS project for them, which made the situation doubly annoying for me personally, though.

 

In terms of it not being a general problem... that is a sticky question. It really gets to the issues of copyright and work for hire. Not nearly enough time for me to explain all of that here... :)

Let me try to rephrase that, I don't worry much about the technicalities ( I get them, though ).   I am saying it is not a general problem _in practice_.
That is, I never had a guy (well, outside Microsoft) say to be: "I would love to contribute to OSS, but my employer refuses to do that and my contract says that I can't contribute on my free time"

[Ayende Rahien]

I knew that I loved Israel for a reason :-)

[Stephen Bohlen]

I agree _in practice_ this hasn't been a problem, but that's somewhat different than the kind of assurances that large corporations are looking for in re: risk-mitigation.  The 'better-safe-than-sorry' risk-averse crowd is looking at worst-possible-case and you're really speaking to 'likelihoods' here.

To put this back into the context of the CPF, the present situation in OSS adoption is that risk-averse companies won't adopt OSS because of the very fear (likely or not, it IS possible) that the CV of code in an OSS project they adopt may come under legal attack by another entity claiming ownership of it.

What (if anything) is the CPF planning to do to mitigate/assuage these risks that will increase adoption by the business community...?

Steve Bohlen
sbo...@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

[Stephen Bohlen]

I would have to agree the the hyper-litigious society we have built for ourselves over here is a rube-golberg-ian disaster of a thing that isn't really the envy of anyone (except perhaps lawyers in other countries) :D

Steve Bohlen
sbo...@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

[Ayende Rahien]

There was a great scene in one of Tom Clancy books, the president is having all the tax laws put on a table, the table breaks down.
I just loved it.

[Stephen Bohlen]

Perhaps table as a metaphor for our society... :)

Steve Bohlen
sbo...@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen

[Phil Haack]

I think in part, it’s not a general problem _in practice_ because developers often simply contribute to OSS without awareness of the law. Most developers find this sort of discussion to be annoying and total drudgery and don’t have time for the legalese. Unfortunately, this can come back to bite them as it did with Perl: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?lastnode_id=26179&node_id=153046

 

If the foundation helps raise awareness and helps people navigate this, then that’s a great benefit. Not to mention, if the foundation only helps Microsoft contribute to OSS, that alone is a net win as MS is a big company and potentially has a lot to offer.

 

However, I said it in the advisory board call and I’ll say it again here. The foundation will have to offer something to the .NET OSS community. I think a healthy .NET OSS community is a good thing and should be part of the mission. In general, I think the OSS community on .NET doesn’t have the size nor health of OSS communities on other platforms. This is where CPF can be a differentiator as well as where it will find its audience, because they are currently not being served.

 

By starting out going after the whole pie and being too broad in reach, it may never get off the ground. But by building up a core audience first, it can grow into a more influential and broad role.

 

Phil

[Stephen Bohlen]

I'm inclined to agree with your points here (certainly in re: the ignorance/lack of interest in the messy details of the very laws under which many/most developers operate daily).

Re: CPF offering something for .NET OSS projects, if the Apache Software Foundation is *primarily* about non-.NET projects but has room in its big tent for *some* non-.NET projects, I'm not at all clear on the reticence of the CPF to just come out and say "we are *primarily* focused on .NET but our big tent is large enough to accommodate projects in other technologies as well".

I get that this is (probably) about an effort to be 'beyond reproach' in the OSS world and ensuring that all efforts are made not to appear a wholly-owned Microsoft venture (a laudable goal), but by trying to be 'all things to all commers' CPF very seriously risks being "nothing to anyone".  Much of the conversation on this board is about "what will CPF do to differentiate itself in the already crowded OSS world of foundations?" and I have to say I haven't seen the answer to this either explicitly or by reading between the lines of follow-on statements, interviews, comments, feedback, or otherwise.

If we believe (and I'm not entirely certain that we do) that the issues with OSS in the .NET space are due primarily (or even secondarily) to the lack of a CPF-like organization with a .NET focus, then why is it so hard for the CPF to just say "we will have a .NET focus?"

To Ayende's point (oft-repeated by others both here and elsewhere): "what's in it for my OSS project?"  Unless/until this seemingly fundamental question is answered in a coherent and non-contradictory manner by the CPF, it cannot really explain its raison-d'etre and that's a weird place for such an organization to be at the time of its formation (IMO).

Steve Bohlen
sbo...@gmail.com
http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
http://twitter.com/sbohlen