LDS Tech - Individual Contributor License Agreement
Joseph Scott
I've been looking at ways to participate in the Church's community
projects and read through the "Individual Contributor License
Agreement" http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=190:individual-contributors-license-agreement&catid=11:community-guidelines&Itemid=21
What I took particular note of was Section 9 - No Publicity:
---------------------
9. No Publicity.
You agree not to engage in any public communications implying that COP
or the Church endorse You or any Contribution. While You may discuss
Contributions in technical forums, You agree not to publicize this
Agreement or any Contribution in any press release, customer list,
website, investment memoranda, or by any other means that names COP,
the Church, or any related legal entity without the express written
permission of COP, which permission COP may withhold at its sole
discretion.
---------------------
Let it be clearly known that I am not a lawyer, have zero legal
training, etc. So I did my best to understand what the implications
are of this section and came up with the following. I would
essentially not be allowed to ever tell anyone (online at any rate)
that I had:
1- even agreed to this license
2- ever contributed code/design/graphics/etc. to a Church project
So no blog post, tweet or facebook post or online resume indicating
that I'd ever contributed to a Church project. Since this email list
is made available on the web if I'd agreed to the license already the
license would forbid me from sending this email since it might be
considered publicizing "this Agreement". For that matter since I use
gmail all of my email is on the web, if I'd agreed to this license
already I wouldn't be allowed to send emails to the Church asking for
clarification on the licensing terms. To really make things twisted,
would this prevent you from mentioning contributions you made to a
Church project when applying for a Church IT position?
This section also seems to be self-conflicting, since it mentions that
I can talk about contributions in 'technical forums', but not on
websites. Given that many 'technical forums' are websites (or at
least archived on websites) I'm not sure how that clause works. It
seems possible that conversations happening on http://tech.lds.org/forum/
might be in violation of section 9.
So I stopped on step 1 of the Requirements for Participation https://tech.lds.org/wiki/index.php/Requirements_for_Participation
and contacted the Church about my concerns. They were passed on to
the legal team. The feedback from legal was that the wording is
exactly what they want and are unwilling to change it.
Now I feel a bit conflicted. I want to be able to help on Church
projects and understand their concern about getting tied up in
potential legal yuckiness with things that look like Church
endorsements, while at the same time feel like they are trying to
legally gag the same people they are asking help from. I figured a
number of people on this list have probably agreed to these terms, or
at least read them. I'm hoping some feedback from others can help
give me some perspective on the subject.
Am I completely off base in my reading of section 9? Is it more
important to be able to contribute even if it means agreeing to never
talking about it?
--
Joseph Scott
jos...@josephscott.org
http://josephscott.org/
Spencer Gibb
the church mill. Why are you doing it? Is it to donate your time and
energy for the benefit of others or to get gain for yourself? It's
essentially the same thing here except it is a highly technical skill
and your not working the assembly line loading bags of potato flakes.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/6/2-3
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet
before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They
have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth:
I think they mean that your not going to promote yourself or profit by
highlighting your donation of time and skill to the church.
Obviously http://tech.lds.org wouldn't be violating there terms
(though maybe they should say that explicitly).
I think it's a great way to contribute your skills to the Church.
--
Spencer
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Joseph Scott<jos...@josephscott.org> wrote:
>
>
> I've been looking at ways to participate in the Church's community
> projects and read through the "Individual Contributor License
> Agreement" http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=190:individual-contributors-license-agreement&catid=11:community-guidelines&Itemid=21
>
> What I took particular note of was Section 9 - No Publicity:
>
> ---------------------
> 9. No Publicity.
>
> You agree not to engage in any public communications implying that COP
> or the Church endorse You or any Contribution. While You may discuss
> Contributions in technical forums, You agree not to publicize this
> Agreement or any Contribution in any press release, customer list,
> website, investment memoranda, or by any other means that names COP,
> the Church, or any related legal entity without the express written
> permission of COP, which permission COP may withhold at its sole
> discretion.
snip...
Paul Penrod
Joseph,
This is the standard "shut up" clause that lawyers are so fond of. IMO,
the wording is
not only clumsy, but shows a lack of respect of the people executing the
contract. But
that is not why I am writing this.
Having done DoD work and other "clandestine" and other "oh so
mysterious" stuff for
other clients, companies and the Federal Government, you come to
recognize that there
are activities and projects that people just don't want published at
large. In this case, I
am sure there is a very good reason not to discuss what is going on.
That's Ok. Really. It doesn't matter one hill of beans...it's just not
up for public consumption.
Having said that, here are some things to keep in mind:
1. The Lord is smarter than Intellectual Reserve and will compensate for
their "works".
2. The Church needs your help more than they need lawyering, because
what you do
to help is germane to the 3 fold mission of the Church. Lawyers are
administrative
overhead at best.
3. Regardless of what you agree to, the Lord will know of your
contribution. No one
else is important enough to tell that will make a difference.
4. If you need to be recognized for your work, you need to rethink about
contributing
as this activity may not be a good fit for you right now.
5. Smile and remind yourself that this is the Lord's Kingdom, and He is
in charge, and
inspite of everyone in it - He'll move it along as needed.
6. Give thanks for being blessed with a skill set that is of value, and
that you can contribute
to the Lord's kingdom in more ways than by Church callings or by
tithing.
7. Don't take it so seriously that it ruins your day.
Hope that helps,
...Paul
shawnee c
http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=23
My tentative guess is that Microsoft makes a lot of money from the Church and people who are maybe a little bit naive about some technical things. It could be a significant blow to the standard Microsoft model of revenue-generating if people were to catch on to and start using the free software alternatives. I wonder how much intimidation is being used to prevent, for example, various family history libraries from being allowed at least the option of using OSS?
Since so much of what a technical-type church calling involves is essentially free technical support, I don't understand why the choice factor of what OS to use, or what web browser, or what archive image-viewer enhancer to use is so locked down.
This issue has me slightly conflicted. Isn't the free and unencumbered exchange of information something that seems like it would be more aligned with the teachings of the Savior? There are a few scriptures that could be cited, if anyone is interested in continuing this discussion. :)
Shawn Willden
> This issue has me slightly conflicted. Isn't the free and unencumbered
> exchange of information something that seems like it would be more aligned
> with the teachings of the Savior? There are a few scriptures that could
> be cited, if anyone is interested in continuing this discussion. :)
OSS is communist. Communism is Evil.
Well, except for the whole Law of Consecration thing, and the United Order,
etc.
;-)
Seriously, I think LDSOSS finds itself wedged in the middle of a conflict
between doctrine and culture. Doctrinally, you're absolutely right, and as a
practical matter it seems like the Church could save a lot of money by
embracing free software, but culturally the Church membership (and
leadership) is very conservative and pro-business, and there is tremendous
respect for successful companies and their wares. You and I may regard
Microsoft as the Evil Empire, but the common conservative view of them is as
a triumph of free enterprise.
I don't think it's an issue for concern, though. A few years ago, the Church
was a 100% Microsoft shop, through and through. All development was done
with Visual <something>, SQL Server was *the* database, etc. Then they got
some new people who embraced Java and (a little bit) Linux. We haven't seen
that influence make it out to the units yet, but it eventually will. And now
we see these first, tentative, steps toward embracing OSS as a model to
accelerate the Church's technology efforts and reduce development costs.
I think if we want to speed that trend along to its doctrinally-correct and
almost inevitable conclusion, the very best thing we can do is to contribute
wholeheartedly to supporting this first, limited, OSS initiative. What works
well will be expanded and will become part of the culture.
Unfortunately, I already have my spare time committed, between my P2P backup
project and my work on the OLPC Math4 project, I'm tapped out. So I'm hoping
that others here will step up and show the Church that open collaboration can
be very effective, and that it's a model that should be expanded.
Shawn.
Steven McCown
Seriously, though, I'd just like to make an observation. It seems
that when the topic of OSS and the church come up on this list, that
the discussion quickly degrades into "what would Jesus do" about
software, living the law of consecration can only mean free software,
or my [least] favorite that the church lawyers or software people or
organization aren't following the gospel, etc. Such observations may
or may not be true. All are, in fact, opinions -- to which all are
entitled.
Shawn's observation that "LDSOSS inds itself wedged in the middle of a
conflict between doctrine and culture." is spot on. The church has
decided what it wants to do regarding software, which is different
from 20 years ago. It will very likely change in the next 20 years.
The same is can be said for most of us, as well. Nevertheless, the
church does own it's property (including software under US law) and it
is trying to let volunteers participate while still protecting itself
and its assets. In doing that, it is also formulating new policies as
it enters into this era of volunteer participation.
The church is trying to let everyone participate and they have given
us all more freedom to do so that we had, previously. We have been
given the freedom to participate under the specified rules. We also
have the freedom not to participate. When somebody gives us something
of theirs, we shouldn't feel slighted for being given more than we had
before -- even it its less than what some wanted or less than that to
which they feel entitled.
If you ask me ("... nobody ever does" -- Eeyore :) , having
(presumably) church members openly contending against their church's
policies in a public forum is probably not a good thing. Instead of
contending over this, those who have the free time and feel morally
capable of participating should and those who don't can watch and see
what happens. In any case, we should probably set a good example for
other OSS-ers who may wander across this forum.
Steve
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mccownclan.com
"Chance favours the prepared mind."
-- Louis Pasteur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Penrod
A) It makes it easy for the IT tech support staff
B) It makes it easy for the people who use the computing environment
C) As long as it solves the problem to some degree - live with it
Over the last 25 years that I've had dealings with the Church IT departments, I've watched it
go from a full blown IBM shop to Microsoft, to it's current amalgam of Linux/Windows servers
with MS boxes for userland people (ie: stakes/wards). Over all that time though, what remains
the same is the serious lack of critical thinking skills on display with a deep seated fear of
trying new things. Extremely Conservative is the best description of the process I can come up
with.
Are there politics in play here? Sure. There are people involved, so there will be politics of one
form or another. That's Ok, as the Lord has already taken that into account, and fortunately,
He directs the Church through President Monson, not through mid-level managment.
As to choice of environment (OS/Web/dev), a lot of that will be dependent on a preponderance
of skill sets. If you have more people with MS that Linux backgrounds, then you get more
lobbying for Microsoft solutions than Linux ones. As more people with Linux skills come into
that department. you will see that change over time. Common sense, experience and actual talent
do not carry the day in terms of decision making in large organizations and the Church is not
different in that regard. People will protect their paychecks before they risk cutting edge solutions
that could make life easier for all.
Now, there are folks who do spend time thinking out of the box - Gordon Clarke is one of those.
Folks that do this need to receive as much support from the outside as possible, so that change
can work inside the organization. In other words, if the "customers" speak loud enough, then the
organization responds to it. This does not mean that the Church will roll over at every turn. In fact,
it will not, but those who are responsible for carrying out various projects will have more feedback
that what is being done is not only working but is gaining steam on the outside, and those initiatives
will continue to get support to move forward.
Spencer Gibb
OSS with some custom glue code.
--
Spencer
shawnee c
There was a fantastic talk on Sunday in sacrament meeting in my ward about reverence. The speaker even included a reference to "reverence for Nature" and talked about recycling and doing the "green" thing. Which made me very happy. . . environmental topics don't come up very often in those meetings.
But that's all beside the point. I guess what my original message was attempting to convey was the issue of providing free tech support. For example, I am serving as a family history consultant in the FHC library in my ward and for my stake. To get firefox and adblock plus installed on a couple of machines required far too much difficulty. Since one of the things that people doing family history work need to do is research (LOTS of research), it seems like a reasonable request to keep popup ads and annoying flash advertisements as far away as possible from the main focus of the work.
So. . . I don't see OSS as "communist" at all. It's simply an alternate model of business. Free is the software. Open-source is the aspect that makes things easier for people who can and are willing to fix things or make things safer and more intuitive for users. I have no problem providing free technical support and help for people doing family history work on the computers in the FHC library, but when burecuracies are essentially forcing me to provide free technical support for IE on WindowsXP in order to carry out the duties of my calling, it's frustrating, slower and less effective than if I were able to teach people how to use the tools I use every day.
But I am hopeful that things will change.
Sean Gates
what remains the same is the serious lack of critical thinking skills on display with a deep seated fear of
trying new things
Common sense, experience and actual talent do not carry the day in terms of decision making in large organizations and the Church is not different in that regard. People will protect their paychecks before they risk cutting edge solutions that could make life easier for all.
John Harrison
Paul Penrod
Sean Gates wrote:
I do not agree with these statements:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Paul Penrod <ppe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
what remains the same is the serious lack of critical thinking skills on display with a deep seated fear of
trying new thingsCommon sense, experience and actual talent do not carry the day in terms of decision making in large organizations and the Church is not different in that regard. People will protect their paychecks before they risk cutting edge solutions that could make life easier for all.
The Church is taking things slowly because it doesn't have to do things quickly. It would jeopardize doing it right. I actually think they are making considerable progress that we cannot see. In fact, they have stated such. The fact that the CIO is blogging, and they launched a public forum (http://tech.lds.org) is a huge sign they are much, much more open and ready have the members at large help in the effort. They were not prepared before, but now I feel they have prepared themselves and are moving things forward as they have the ability.
value in moving the work of the Church along. As to getting it done right - that is a presumption that does not bare out
with historical record. The Church has no mystical advantage over any other large organization. It is full of people with
opinions, biases, agendas, and skills. Working for the Church does not sweep any of that under the rug. The biggest
advantage I have seen doing work with folks in SLC is that many of them are open to suggestion or at least to give
consideration to new ideas that make sense. The conservative nature in their approach is part of the culture of the
organization - nothing else. As an observation that is not a judgment call - it just is.
Therefore, please do not judge. We are not here to judge the programmers, IT professionals, employed Church management, and/or the lawyers, for any part of this. We just need to support the Church, and sustain it. And do it with love and compassion for the environment they work within. I would second the motion to keep the rhetoric out of conversations and stick to supporting and sustaining the Church in our public discourse.
It does mean that such issues be discussed in a constructive manner that allows people to make decisions on
whether or not this activity is for them at this time in their life. Not all things going on are for all programmers.
There is a time and season to participate and there are many people who work behind the scenes as well as out
in the public to help move the work along. There are also people who stroke their ego with involvement in Church
projects that must be dealt with to. The Lord does not discriminate when it comes to helping. Member and non-menber
alike are welcome, and no one has to be perfect. That is how learning takes place - by making mistakes along the
way, not just through the successes garnered with projects.
Sean Gates
Russell Hltn
*follow* the enterprise trends. It does not lead except in those
areas where it must in order to accomplish it's mission (think Family
History), or in areas where it doesn't apply enterprise practices
(such as Open Office at the unit level). Because the church does use
Open Office, I see more OSS at church than I do at work. I believe MS
is where it is today because it caters to the challenges of
enterprise-level management while its contenders all cater to the
individual.
I think the Family History computers are Windows primarily to support
the commercial FH applications that have been made available to the
FHCs. Those who work in a FHC should probably note that those
machines run LANDesk and use it to deploy changes. Just another
example of enterprise computing.
I've seen Open Source banded about as some magic solution. The fact
is, it only works when there's a critical mass of sufficiently
talented individuals with spare time to make it work. Is that
critical mass there for LDS software? The church has created a few
projects to test the waters. I'm no developer, but my own impression
of those projects is "slow". The time for asking why the church isn't
doing more with OSS has passed. It's time to walk the walk.