It has become clear over the last few months that Node's popularity can support a larger, more structured development team. Indeed, for Node to achieve massive success -- for it to be the next PHP -- it needs investment that can support a team of full-time developers and a corporate entity behind it that can, for example, enter into agreements with large companies who are keen to bring Node to their projects and make contributions back to the project. Someone spending time and resources on evangelism and stuff wouldn't hurt either.
Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
Contact me at r...@joyent.com if you have any questions.
It's great to hear that node.js is getting some serious corporate consideration. It's a great project and it would be a shame if, for whatever reason, you eventually moved on and the project was put on hold. Putting it into the hands of Joyent like this should ensure it's survival long after you've moved on to other things. Not that I expect that'll happen any time soon. ;)
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ryan Dahl <r...@tinyclouds.org> wrote: > It has become clear over the last few months that Node's popularity > can support a larger, more structured development team. Indeed, for > Node to achieve massive success -- for it to be the next PHP -- it > needs investment that can support a team of full-time developers and a > corporate entity behind it that can, for example, enter into > agreements with large companies who are keen to bring Node to their > projects and make contributions back to the project. Someone spending > time and resources on evangelism and stuff wouldn't hurt either.
> Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and > open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent > that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change > for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to > Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under > the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting > my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and > plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project > immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our > minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon > offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
> Contact me at r...@joyent.com if you have any questions.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<nodejs%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
This is good to hear. Emerging platforms generally need at least one solid corporate backer to succeed in the grand scheme of things. Joyent's investment in Node will undoubtedly prove fruitful for everyone.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ryan Dahl <r...@tinyclouds.org> wrote: > It has become clear over the last few months that Node's popularity > can support a larger, more structured development team. Indeed, for > Node to achieve massive success -- for it to be the next PHP -- it > needs investment that can support a team of full-time developers and a > corporate entity behind it that can, for example, enter into > agreements with large companies who are keen to bring Node to their > projects and make contributions back to the project. Someone spending > time and resources on evangelism and stuff wouldn't hurt either.
> Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and > open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent > that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change > for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to > Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under > the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting > my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and > plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project > immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our > minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon > offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
> Contact me at r...@joyent.com if you have any questions.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<nodejs%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
> This is good to hear. Emerging platforms generally need at least one solid corporate backer to succeed in the grand scheme of things. Joyent's investment in Node will undoubtedly prove fruitful for everyone.
> Thanks for the update!
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ryan Dahl <r...@tinyclouds.org> wrote: > It has become clear over the last few months that Node's popularity > can support a larger, more structured development team. Indeed, for > Node to achieve massive success -- for it to be the next PHP -- it > needs investment that can support a team of full-time developers and a > corporate entity behind it that can, for example, enter into > agreements with large companies who are keen to bring Node to their > projects and make contributions back to the project. Someone spending > time and resources on evangelism and stuff wouldn't hurt either.
> Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and > open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent > that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change > for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to > Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under > the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting > my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and > plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project > immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our > minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon > offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
> Contact me at r...@joyent.com if you have any questions.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
> -- > Evan Meagher
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
Just to be clear, the copyright assignment is transferring from you personally to Joyent, and the CLA will now require contributors to assign the copyright to Joyent, correct?
Might also want to make it clear to people that the MIT license doesn't really enable the kinds of backdoor proprietary licenses companies do with the the GPL when they have these kinds of assignments in their CLA.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Ryan Dahl <r...@tinyclouds.org> wrote: > It has become clear over the last few months that Node's popularity > can support a larger, more structured development team. Indeed, for > Node to achieve massive success -- for it to be the next PHP -- it > needs investment that can support a team of full-time developers and a > corporate entity behind it that can, for example, enter into > agreements with large companies who are keen to bring Node to their > projects and make contributions back to the project. Someone spending > time and resources on evangelism and stuff wouldn't hurt either.
> Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and > open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent > that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change > for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to > Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under > the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting > my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and > plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project > immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our > minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon > offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
> Contact me at r...@joyent.com if you have any questions.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<nodejs%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rog...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to be clear, the copyright assignment is transferring from you > personally to Joyent, and the CLA will now require contributors to assign > the copyright to Joyent, correct?
Correct
> Might also want to make it clear to people that the MIT license doesn't > really enable the kinds of backdoor proprietary licenses companies do with > the the GPL when they have these kinds of assignments in their CLA.
That's right. Linking to Node does not require your software to also be open source.
> It has become clear over the last few months that Node's popularity > can support a larger, more structured development team. Indeed, for > Node to achieve massive success -- for it to be the next PHP -- it > needs investment that can support a team of full-time developers and a > corporate entity behind it that can, for example, enter into > agreements with large companies who are keen to bring Node to their > projects and make contributions back to the project. Someone spending > time and resources on evangelism and stuff wouldn't hurt either.
> Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and > open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent > that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change > for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to > Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under > the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting > my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and > plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project > immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our > minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon > offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
> Contact me at r...@joyent.com if you have any questions.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en > .
<sigma.octan...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is an inmediatisc solution to a self-created problem.
> The case of Pure Data (software) continues to be the most promisory business > approach for the NeXT decade.
> (the NeXT is of my iPod)
> Diego
> Enviado desde mi iPod
> El 09-11-2010, a las 20:53, Ryan Dahl <r...@tinyclouds.org> escribió:
>> It has become clear over the last few months that Node's popularity >> can support a larger, more structured development team. Indeed, for >> Node to achieve massive success -- for it to be the next PHP -- it >> needs investment that can support a team of full-time developers and a >> corporate entity behind it that can, for example, enter into >> agreements with large companies who are keen to bring Node to their >> projects and make contributions back to the project. Someone spending >> time and resources on evangelism and stuff wouldn't hurt either.
>> Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and >> open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent >> that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change >> for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to >> Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under >> the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting >> my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and >> plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project >> immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our >> minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon >> offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
>> Contact me at r...@joyent.com if you have any questions.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "nodejs" group. >> To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
-- Andrew Lunny Software Developer, Nitobi 604 685 9287 blogs.nitobi.com/andrew
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Ryan Dahl <r...@tinyclouds.org> wrote: > Joyent's core business (cloud computing) aligns well with a free and > open Node.js. For these reasons I've made an agreement with Joyent > that officially puts Node under their roof. The only effective change > for developers is that the contributor agreement will be directed to > Joyent rather than myself. Node will continue regular releases under > the MIT license. As part of the agreement -- in addition to supporting > my own development on Node -- we've recently hired Isaac Schlueter and > plan to add at least one more full-time developer on the core project > immediately. As a business we will begin selling instances of our > minimalistic no.de Node hosting service in several weeks and soon > offer support services developing custom bindings to Node.
This is mixed news.
On the one hand, as a member of the Node community, I want to offer congratulations both to Isaac and yourself. I count myself as one of no doubt many who have come to love Node and respect the two of you (and others) for your contributions to its development. I hope however the business and legal environment surrounding Node evolves, people such as yourself always are rewarded appropriately, financially and otherwise.
On the other hand, as someone making investments in the future of Node, I find its corporate ownership a little unsettling. Java got pushed into my CS program in the 90s, and now it's in the headlines because of Oracle's lawsuits. Zend has a habit of trying to sell features that ought to be part of libre PHP. And Microsoft... how much does Visual Studio cost again?
I don't know anyone at Joyent, personally. Are they good people? What did they get on their end of this deal? Who has final say in the language's development? There are other Node hosting providers, like Heroku. Should they not be worried about selling something in competition with its creator?
There is a big difference. Node is MIT. And other companies with power and interest in node could simply fork if Joyent were to act foolishly.
Sent from my Palm Pixi on AT&T On Nov 9, 2010 10:53 PM, joelparkerhenderson <joelparkerhender...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is mixed news.
This is difficult news because corporate interests
seem to harm open software, especially recently.
There are major problems right now with MySQL because of this.
Sun did buggy releases, and now Oracle is shutting off options.
I can donate $1000 in matching funds toward funding a Joyent Node
competitor.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
So just to be clear, the CLA will say that you have transferred over your copyright to Joyent. So basically Joyent as company can do anything they want with our Node.js code because the CLA does not specifically state that the code is only intended to be used for the Node.js project?
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rog...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Just to be clear, the copyright assignment is transferring from you >> personally to Joyent, and the CLA will now require contributors to assign >> the copyright to Joyent, correct?
> Correct
>> Might also want to make it clear to people that the MIT license doesn't >> really enable the kinds of backdoor proprietary licenses companies do with >> the the GPL when they have these kinds of assignments in their CLA.
> That's right. Linking to Node does not require your software to also > be open source.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
On Nov 9, 11:45 pm, Arnout Kazemier <i...@3rd-eden.com> wrote:
> So just to be clear, the CLA will say that you have transferred over your copyright to Joyent.
> So basically Joyent as company can do anything they want with our Node.js code because
> the CLA does not specifically state that the code is only intended to be used for the Node.js
> project?
Correct. The first line is "You grant us the ability to use the
Contributions in any way."
The CLA is clear that this includes Joyent selling your code, changing
its license to be
proprietary, or one-sidedly deciding to omit your code from Node then
sell your code or
incorporate your code into other proprietary Joyent projects.
> On Nov 9, 11:45 pm, Arnout Kazemier <i...@3rd-eden.com> wrote: >> So just to be clear, the CLA will say that you have transferred over your copyright to Joyent. >> So basically Joyent as company can do anything they want with our Node.js code because >> the CLA does not specifically state that the code is only intended to be used for the Node.js >> project?
> Correct. The first line is "You grant us the ability to use the > Contributions in any way." > The CLA is clear that this includes Joyent selling your code, changing > its license to be > proprietary, or one-sidedly deciding to omit your code from Node then > sell your code or > incorporate your code into other proprietary Joyent projects.
I am not, of course, a lawyer, nor am I speaking for anyone but myself, but I personally don't think this adds much to what Joyent (or anyone else) could already do with node source code. The BSD license doesn't preclude 'additional restrictions' like the GPL does. As far as I know MicroSoft had no claims on the BSD networking code, but that didn't stop them putting it in Windows. That code is still covered by the BSD license as far as I know, but MS have added extra restrictions: More licenses that also cover the same code and the code it is aggregated with.
It is with general respect that Joyent would not be likely to sell your code, given it is a contribution to an open source project. It is incredibly unlikely that Joyent will ever change the licensing of Node.js, which would end up being an extremely costly and complicated process.
The CLA only covers code contributed to the Node.js project, in other words, what you get when you checkout ry/node from github or when you download a tarball.
The CLA does NOT cover any modules that you contribute to the community via things like NPM.
The CLA has been in place for the last few months, all that has changed is now instead of transferring your IP and such to Ryan Dahl, you are now transferring them to Joyent, the text of the CLA is the same otherwise.
A really good example I have of CLA's is the Dojo Toolkit project. You sign a CLA to say that the code you contribute to the Dojo Toolkit is owned / intellectually owned by the Dojo Foundation. The reason for this is to protect the project from people contributing things to http://github.com/ry/node and then later contact ryan or someone and saying that they need the code they contributed removed from the project because it's actually owned by their own company. This is something that actually happened in the early days of the jQuery UI project, and part of the reason as to why jQuery UI didn't launch with a Menu/Toolbar widget back when it was first released.
It would be bad and unfriendly developer practice for Joyent to use the code you contribute to Node.js under different license for other purposes. The CLA is purely something to safe guard the project from bad Intellectual Property rights and licensing, which have plagued various other projects.
If you have contributed any code to Node.js over the past few months, you should have signed the CLA any way. The only difference is that now, rather than handing your IP to Ryan, you're handing it to Joyent.
Hopefully this clears some stuff up a little bit. There's no need to over react to the change in the name on the CLA.
Yours, Micheil Smith -- BrandedCode.com
On 10/11/2010, at 6:55 PM, joelparkerhenderson wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:45 pm, Arnout Kazemier <i...@3rd-eden.com> wrote: >> So just to be clear, the CLA will say that you have transferred over your copyright to Joyent. >> So basically Joyent as company can do anything they want with our Node.js code because >> the CLA does not specifically state that the code is only intended to be used for the Node.js >> project?
> Correct. The first line is "You grant us the ability to use the > Contributions in any way." > The CLA is clear that this includes Joyent selling your code, changing > its license to be > proprietary, or one-sidedly deciding to omit your code from Node then > sell your code or > incorporate your code into other proprietary Joyent projects.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
> 2010/11/10 joelparkerhenderson <joelparkerhender...@gmail.com>:
> > On Nov 9, 11:45 pm, Arnout Kazemier <i...@3rd-eden.com> wrote:
> >> So just to be clear, the CLA will say that you have transferred over your copyright to Joyent.
> >> So basically Joyent as company can do anything they want with our Node.js code because
> >> the CLA does not specifically state that the code is only intended to be used for the Node.js
> >> project?
> > Correct. The first line is "You grant us the ability to use the
> > Contributions in any way."
> > The CLA is clear that this includes Joyent selling your code, changing
> > its license to be
> > proprietary, or one-sidedly deciding to omit your code from Node then
> > sell your code or
> > incorporate your code into other proprietary Joyent projects.
> I am not, of course, a lawyer, nor am I speaking for anyone but
> myself, but I personally don't think this adds much to what Joyent (or
> anyone else) could already do with node source code. The BSD license
> doesn't preclude 'additional restrictions' like the GPL does. As far
> as I know MicroSoft had no claims on the BSD networking code, but that
> didn't stop them putting it in Windows. That code is still covered by
> the BSD license as far as I know, but MS have added extra
> restrictions: More licenses that also cover the same code and the code
> it is aggregated with.
Correct. The point here is that Joyent, like anyone else who uses the
Node
source code in any way, is bound by the terms of the source code
license,
namely, MIT. If we were using the code in a proprietary product, we
still
have to respect that license. If you're contributing code, it's under
MIT as well,
and published in public git repos where it could be rescued/forked/
whatever
if Joyent, Palm/HP, Yahoo!, Ryan, or anyone else that runs a node fork
"went rogue". The community around node is strong, and comparing this
to the MySQL/Oracle situation is far fetched, IMO. No GPL and
associated
"dual licensing" legacy is involved for one, and of course Joyent is
hardly
the $31B behemoth that Oracle is..
The CLA for node is identical to the CLA used by V8 itself, btw. Ditto
with
the choice of the MIT open source license.
Regarding competition, of course there will be zillions of options for
hosting
node apps. Node isn't GAE or some magic platform that only Joyent can
run. Got access to a computer? Run your node app! We expect to compete
with Heroku, VMware, Google, Amazon and the myriad of hosting
providers
out there by offering a better *service*. It's really that simple.
For a little more background on why we decided to do this, I wrote a
little blog post:
As a contributor to Node.js and an active user, I too believe you did the right and honourable thing. I guess people are just scared after the chaos that the Java/Android folks had to experience due to Oracle.
> On Nov 10, 12:06 am, Erik Corry <e...@arbat.com> wrote: >> 2010/11/10 joelparkerhenderson <joelparkerhender...@gmail.com>: >>> On Nov 9, 11:45 pm, Arnout Kazemier <i...@3rd-eden.com> wrote: >>>> So just to be clear, the CLA will say that you have transferred over your copyright to Joyent. >>>> So basically Joyent as company can do anything they want with our Node.js code because >>>> the CLA does not specifically state that the code is only intended to be used for the Node.js >>>> project?
>>> Correct. The first line is "You grant us the ability to use the >>> Contributions in any way." >>> The CLA is clear that this includes Joyent selling your code, changing >>> its license to be >>> proprietary, or one-sidedly deciding to omit your code from Node then >>> sell your code or >>> incorporate your code into other proprietary Joyent projects.
>> I am not, of course, a lawyer, nor am I speaking for anyone but >> myself, but I personally don't think this adds much to what Joyent (or >> anyone else) could already do with node source code. The BSD license >> doesn't preclude 'additional restrictions' like the GPL does. As far >> as I know MicroSoft had no claims on the BSD networking code, but that >> didn't stop them putting it in Windows. That code is still covered by >> the BSD license as far as I know, but MS have added extra >> restrictions: More licenses that also cover the same code and the code >> it is aggregated with.
> Correct. The point here is that Joyent, like anyone else who uses the > Node source code in any way, is bound by the terms of the source code > license, namely, MIT. If we were using the code in a proprietary product, we > still have to respect that license. If you're contributing code, it's under > MIT as well, and published in public git repos where it could be rescued/forked/ > whatever if Joyent, Palm/HP, Yahoo!, Ryan, or anyone else that runs a node fork > "went rogue". The community around node is strong, and comparing this > to the MySQL/Oracle situation is far fetched, IMO. No GPL and > associated "dual licensing" legacy is involved for one, and of course Joyent is > hardly the $31B behemoth that Oracle is..
> The CLA for node is identical to the CLA used by V8 itself, btw. Ditto > with the choice of the MIT open source license.
> Regarding competition, of course there will be zillions of options for > hosting node apps. Node isn't GAE or some magic platform that only Joyent can > run. Got access to a computer? Run your node app! We expect to compete > with Heroku, VMware, Google, Amazon and the myriad of hosting > providers out there by offering a better *service*. It's really that simple.
> For a little more background on why we decided to do this, I wrote a > little blog post:
> At the end of the day, I believe we did the honourable, right thing > for both Ryan and node.
> Cheers, > -Mark (Joyent)
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Micheil Smith <mich...@brandedcode.com> wrote: > It is with general respect that Joyent would not be likely to sell your > code, given it is a contribution to an open source project. It is incredibly > unlikely that Joyent will ever change the licensing of Node.js, which > would end up being an extremely costly and complicated process.
> The CLA only covers code contributed to the Node.js project, in other words, what > you get when you checkout ry/node from github or when you download a tarball.
> The CLA does NOT cover any modules that you contribute to the community via > things like NPM.
> The CLA has been in place for the last few months, all that has changed is now > instead of transferring your IP and such to Ryan Dahl, you are now transferring > them to Joyent, the text of the CLA is the same otherwise.
> A really good example I have of CLA's is the Dojo Toolkit project. You sign a > CLA to say that the code you contribute to the Dojo Toolkit is owned / intellectually > owned by the Dojo Foundation. The reason for this is to protect the project from > people contributing things to http://github.com/ry/node and then later contact ryan > or someone and saying that they need the code they contributed removed from the > project because it's actually owned by their own company. This is something that > actually happened in the early days of the jQuery UI project, and part of the reason > as to why jQuery UI didn't launch with a Menu/Toolbar widget back when it was > first released.
> It would be bad and unfriendly developer practice for Joyent to use the code you > contribute to Node.js under different license for other purposes. The CLA is purely > something to safe guard the project from bad Intellectual Property rights and licensing, > which have plagued various other projects.
> If you have contributed any code to Node.js over the past few months, you should have > signed the CLA any way. The only difference is that now, rather than handing your IP > to Ryan, you're handing it to Joyent.
> Hopefully this clears some stuff up a little bit. There's no need to over react to the > change in the name on the CLA.
Yes, strictly about the CLA change, the real world impact for contributing code is minimal.
I personally would of preferred the code be licensed to a non-profit / foundation steward. As you mentioned, Dojo is a good example of a project that does exactly this. Non-profits and foundations motivations don't change as business needs change. They are there to last decades.
My concerns for the community about the change are much more on the branding side of Node.js, as a product of Joyent.
I certainly want a company to promote the growth of Node -- someone to sit down with enterprises and get them interested in Node. Joyent seems to be in a good position to promote Node.
However, I believe advocacy in the enterprise is separate from 'owning' the project. I am concerned about things like branding it "Joyent Node.js" and the like. Sponsored by logos in the footer of the website aren't a big deal, but it will be interesting to see how Joyent chooses to promote Node and vice versa.
In the end I'm sure Joyent wants what is best for the community. A successful Node.js community is good for them. But I am still worried about the depth of the embrace -- as long as Node is developed openly and refereed to as an open source project, and not a Joyent product, I think it will be fine.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Mark Mayo <markgm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 10, 12:06 am, Erik Corry <e...@arbat.com> wrote: >> 2010/11/10 joelparkerhenderson <joelparkerhender...@gmail.com>: >> > On Nov 9, 11:45 pm, Arnout Kazemier <i...@3rd-eden.com> wrote: >> >> So just to be clear, the CLA will say that you have transferred over your copyright to Joyent. >> >> So basically Joyent as company can do anything they want with our Node.js code because >> >> the CLA does not specifically state that the code is only intended to be used for the Node.js >> >> project?
>> > Correct. The first line is "You grant us the ability to use the >> > Contributions in any way." >> > The CLA is clear that this includes Joyent selling your code, changing >> > its license to be >> > proprietary, or one-sidedly deciding to omit your code from Node then >> > sell your code or >> > incorporate your code into other proprietary Joyent projects.
>> I am not, of course, a lawyer, nor am I speaking for anyone but >> myself, but I personally don't think this adds much to what Joyent (or >> anyone else) could already do with node source code. The BSD license >> doesn't preclude 'additional restrictions' like the GPL does. As far >> as I know MicroSoft had no claims on the BSD networking code, but that >> didn't stop them putting it in Windows. That code is still covered by >> the BSD license as far as I know, but MS have added extra >> restrictions: More licenses that also cover the same code and the code >> it is aggregated with.
> Correct. The point here is that Joyent, like anyone else who uses the > Node > source code in any way, is bound by the terms of the source code > license, > namely, MIT. If we were using the code in a proprietary product, we > still > have to respect that license. If you're contributing code, it's under > MIT as well, > and published in public git repos where it could be rescued/forked/ > whatever > if Joyent, Palm/HP, Yahoo!, Ryan, or anyone else that runs a node fork > "went rogue". The community around node is strong, and comparing this > to the MySQL/Oracle situation is far fetched, IMO. No GPL and > associated > "dual licensing" legacy is involved for one, and of course Joyent is > hardly > the $31B behemoth that Oracle is..
> The CLA for node is identical to the CLA used by V8 itself, btw. Ditto > with > the choice of the MIT open source license.
Unfortunately, Google did not release v8 under the Apache 2.0 license, which includes a patent grant -- if you look at most projects Google releases they pick the Apache 2.0 license by default, unless there is a different expectation in the community (ie, a Linux kernel driver is under GPL). Their choice of BSD does make me wonder if they were worried about the pantent minefield that is developing a VM. Anyways, enough musing about patent grants in licensing....
Sorry for being pedantic about the licensing/clas.
Let's say, hypothetically, Joyent turns evil, and decides to dual-license node with a GPL version and a proprietary for-pay license. It's unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
The day that happens, anyone can just take Node, fork it, call it "OpenNode", and keep right on trucking. Certainly, damage could be done to the community, and it could erode the confidence in Node as a platform.
That is just so wildly unlikely, though. Not because Joyent is so lovey dovey about the node community (though we totally are), but because it'd just be such a profoundly *stupid* move. Joyent is in a position to make sure that node continues to grow in awesomeness, that the community stays free and vibrant, and most importantly, that *other* companies invest in it and jump on this bandwagon. It's in the greedy self-interest of Joyent to do these things.
If you look at the other stuff the company's been involved with, there's a clear track record of using open source software, being a good open source citizen, and reaping rewards from it. It's not a dumb bunch of people.
Joyent didn't steal Node away from us. We all recruited Joyent to help take node to the next level.
> Regarding competition, of course there will be zillions of options for > hosting > node apps. Node isn't GAE or some magic platform that only Joyent can > run. Got access to a computer? Run your node app!
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote: > Let's say, hypothetically, Joyent turns evil, and decides to > dual-license node with a GPL version and a proprietary for-pay > license. It's unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
I'll try to keep my replies realistic. I don't think many statements made in your original email were realistic.
Regardless of the actual risk of it happening, this is one reason open source non-profit foundations of all shapes and sizes exist -- so it can never happen.
> The day that happens, anyone can just take Node, fork it, call it > "OpenNode", and keep right on trucking. Certainly, damage could be > done to the community, and it could erode the confidence in Node as a > platform.
You could not call it OpenNode, as a fork, the holder of the Copyright and License would most likely enforce this as a confusing product name, and it would need to be renamed something that didn't keep the "node" name. See also, OpenSolaris -> Illumos.
> That is just so wildly unlikely, though. Not because Joyent is so > lovey dovey about the node community (though we totally are), but > because it'd just be such a profoundly *stupid* move. Joyent is in a > position to make sure that node continues to grow in awesomeness, that > the community stays free and vibrant, and most importantly, that > *other* companies invest in it and jump on this bandwagon. It's in > the greedy self-interest of Joyent to do these things.
I agree. it is in Joyent's interest for Node to be successful.
I do believe companies priorities change over time, and in general they will diverge from the communities in the long run. (See Zend :: PHP, Sun/Oracle :: Java).
> If you look at the other stuff the company's been involved with, > there's a clear track record of using open source software, being a > good open source citizen, and reaping rewards from it. It's not a > dumb bunch of people.
What other open source projects has Joyent really produced with the cooperation of an open community?
It doesn't seem at all like a community driven project, its a product that happens to also be on Github.
You and Ryan both have open source track records, and that is great, but Joyent -- as a company -- does not have the open source track record with a community based project. This doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, only I disagree with your statement about Joyent being a "good open source citizen, and reaping rewards from it. ".
Well shit, now I'm being an ass. Best I go to bed.
Mark (Joyent) wrote:
> The point here is that Joyent, like anyone else who uses the Node
> source code in any way, is bound by the terms of the source code
> license, namely, MIT.
Mark, that's a good intent, but it's not the way your CLA reads.
The CLA specifcally says Joyent can change a contributor's license.
> If we were using the code in a proprietary product, we still
> have to respect that license.
Actually, your CLA says that Joyent may, at its sole discretion,
change the license for whatever Joyent has received from contributors.
> If you're contributing code, it's under MIT as well, and published
> in public git repos where it could be rescued/forked/ whatever
If these repos use the word "Node" then Joyent could shut them down
for infringement. Sun did this for projects using "Java" in the name.
> The community around node is strong, and comparing this
> to the MySQL/Oracle situation is far fetched, IMO.
Then Joyent should have no problem striking the "proprietary" part of
the CLA.
> No GPL and associated "dual licensing" legacy is involved
What you write is contrary to the CLA, which specifically
says Joyent may add additional licenses.
> The CLA for node is identical to the CLA used by V8 itself, btw.
No, it's not. In fact, it's quite different, e.g. Joyent can create
proprietary licenses.
Whomever told you that the two are identical is mistaken; you can
compare them to see.
Mark, your comments each seem to contradict to what the CLA states;
Assuming you are being honest and truthful, then what would it take to
get
a Joyent lawyer to fix the CLA to bring it into line with what you're
writing?
I guess my only concern would be downstream chains of acquisitions -
eg company x buys out company y, then a few years later company z
acquires company x, and then realises along the way they've also
acquired this bit of Open Source software that was originally owned by
company y. So it isn't the original company y you need to worry
about. It's when big bad z or someone else down the acquisition chain
gets their hands on it....
Rob
On Nov 10, 9:40 am, Paul Querna <pque...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
> > Let's say, hypothetically, Joyent turns evil, and decides to
> > dual-license node with a GPL version and a proprietary for-pay
> > license. It's unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
> I'll try to keep my replies realistic. I don't think many statements
> made in your original email were realistic.
> Regardless of the actual risk of it happening, this is one reason open
> source non-profit foundations of all shapes and sizes exist -- so it
> can never happen.
> > The day that happens, anyone can just take Node, fork it, call it
> > "OpenNode", and keep right on trucking. Certainly, damage could be
> > done to the community, and it could erode the confidence in Node as a
> > platform.
> You could not call it OpenNode, as a fork, the holder of the Copyright
> and License would most likely enforce this as a confusing product
> name, and it would need to be renamed something that didn't keep the
> "node" name. See also, OpenSolaris -> Illumos.
> > That is just so wildly unlikely, though. Not because Joyent is so
> > lovey dovey about the node community (though we totally are), but
> > because it'd just be such a profoundly *stupid* move. Joyent is in a
> > position to make sure that node continues to grow in awesomeness, that
> > the community stays free and vibrant, and most importantly, that
> > *other* companies invest in it and jump on this bandwagon. It's in
> > the greedy self-interest of Joyent to do these things.
> I agree. it is in Joyent's interest for Node to be successful.
> I do believe companies priorities change over time, and in general
> they will diverge from the communities in the long run. (See Zend ::
> PHP, Sun/Oracle :: Java).
> > If you look at the other stuff the company's been involved with,
> > there's a clear track record of using open source software, being a
> > good open source citizen, and reaping rewards from it. It's not a
> > dumb bunch of people.
> What other open source projects has Joyent really produced with the
> cooperation of an open community?
> It doesn't seem at all like a community driven project, its a product
> that happens to also be on Github.
> You and Ryan both have open source track records, and that is great,
> but Joyent -- as a company -- does not have the open source track
> record with a community based project. This doesn't mean it can't or
> won't happen, only I disagree with your statement about Joyent being a
> "good open source citizen, and reaping rewards from it. ".
> Well shit, now I'm being an ass. Best I go to bed.
