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 ry...@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 nod...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+un...@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 nod...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en.
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.
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
--
Andrew Lunny
Software Developer, Nitobi
604 685 9287
blogs.nitobi.com/andrew
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.
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.
--
Erik Corry
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
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.
Yours,
Micheil Smith
--
BrandedCode.com
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.
These are just my concerns.
Thanks,
Paul
No.
The Google v8 CLA is here:
<http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html>
It is different than the Node.js CLA here:
<http://nodejs.org/cla.html>
Node is under the MIT license:
<https://github.com/ry/node/blob/master/LICENSE>
Google's v8 however is under the New BSD License:
<http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/trunk/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.
Thanks,
Paul
144.48B as of today. http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AORCL
--
Jorge.
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.
--i
I don't speak for Google and I'm not going to get into any form of
discussion on this, but I will just link to this blog post which
relates to the issue Mark brought up:
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2010/10/research-project-appscale-at-university.html
--
Erik Corry
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?
The smart platform? <https://github.com/joyent/smart-platform>
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.
Thanks,
Paul
I (and soon Joyent) have issued you the right to use Node under these terms:
https://github.com/ry/node/blob/v0.3.0/LICENSE
As a user this is the only license that you are bound to. Namely - if
this is what you're inferring - Joyent cannot take a version of the
software distributed to you in the past under the MIT, call you up,
dictate that your license is now commercial, and demand money. You
should read the terms of your license and consider if they suit you.
Specifically you are allowed "to deal in the Software without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of
the Software".
Contributors to my repository must be bound by stricter terms.
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.
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.
Actually, according to the terms of the license, you could call it
"NodeJS". It's not the PHP license.
> 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).
Right. And if Joyent is a douche, they're going to find themselves
empty-handed, as the node community will find a new champion.
> What other open source projects has Joyent really produced with the
> cooperation of an open community?
Rails and Solaris come to mind. Joyent's had a lot of interaction
with both products. (The Reasonably Smart platform was an
acquisition, just like Node is.)
> The smart platform? <https://github.com/joyent/smart-platform>
>
> It doesn't seem at all like a community driven project, its a product
> that happens to also be on Github.
They tried to build a community around it. But it didn't catch like node has.
To what extent is node really "community driven" or "community based",
though? This has always been a monarchy. Node's success has always
relied in large part on the personality and esthetic sense of its
author.
If anything, my one fear about the Joyent-Node stuff is that it
becomes *less* unilateral. I certainly don't want the Joyent
engineering management team, brilliant guys though they may be, to
come in and say "make node do this, the community wants it". But I'm
really not worried about that happening. They're not morons, to say
the least.
> Well shit, now I'm being an ass. Best I go to bed.
I disagree. Your points are interesting and well stated, and I'm glad
you bring them up.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 08:52, Nathan Rajlich <nat...@tootallnate.net> wrote:
> So does this mean the GitHub repo is going to move (to maybe
> http://github.com/joyent/node)? And does this mean that Isaacs and possibly
> other people on the team at Joyent will be pushing commits/patches to the
> repo?
I sure hope not.
--i
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:40, Paul Querna <pqu...@apache.org> wrote:Actually, according to the terms of the license, you could call it
> 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.
"NodeJS". It's not the PHP license.
Dojo's CLA assigns rights to Dojo Foundation
(http://dojofoundation.org/), which is a non-profit entity chartered to
promote its projects as open source. Besides Dojo it shelters Kris Zyp's
Persevere, Joe Walker's DWR, John Resig's Sizzle, James Burke's
RequireJS, and many other interesting open source projects.
Joyent is a private for-profit organization, which does the bidding of
its unnamed owners. There are no restrictions on what they may do with
node.js. Obviously, their ideas and the vision for node.js can be
completely noble and totally unselfish. Or they may have totally
different plans.
Money-wise I have no doubt that Joyent has much much deeper pockets,
than Dojo Foundation, or any other non-profit open source foundation for
that matter. If this is all that is required to develop node.js we have
no reason to complain.
Favoritism is the other matter. I just don't see Dojo Foundation keeping
jQuery's Sizzle from using in jQuery in favor of Dojo, or any other
project. Or preventing, say, Oracle from using Dojo in their products.
It never happened and I cannot even fathom how it can happen. But I saw
for-profit companies delaying open sourcing of certain code, until it is
fully integrated in their product line ("to battle-test it!") before
making it available to potential competitors --- to be completely honest
all such cases backfired and hurt respective open source projects and I
hope that Joyent is smarter than that.
Cheers,
Eugene Lazutkin
http://lazutkin.com/
Dojo Foundation supports dual-licensed projects --- AFL and BSD. Why not
ask Dojo Foundation to provide a legal shelter for node.js and help with
technical details? It knows JavaScript, and AFAIK its board members,
project leads council, and all voting members are well-known in the
JavaScript community, and are avid supporters and users of node.js.
And Dojo Foundation, while JavaScript-oriented, is not the only game in
town. Apache Software Foundation is well-respected and has the proven
track record. Why not ask them?
I am sure that Joyent would not have problems with such arrangement,
because I believe that their intentions are pure. This move will remove
any cause for criticism and uncertainty.
Cheers,
Eugene Lazutkin
http://lazutkin.com/
Yours,
Micheil Smith
--
BrandedCode.com
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:40, Paul Querna <pqu...@apache.org> wrote:Actually, according to the terms of the license, you could call it
> 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.
"NodeJS". It's not the PHP license.This falls under trademark (even if the name isn't a registered trademark you can claim that you have been using it exclusively and therefor own it).
Trademark is not covered by the copyright license and in fact cannot be licensed in any kind of open sourcey way because trademark is fucked up and crazy law.
Right, but there are already a few other projects that have used the
"node" name, and that's why you can't do "apt-get install node" to get
it. (See other threads on this topic.)
Anyway, you could call it awesomejs or whatever other name. It really
doesn't matter much.
None of us are lawyers here, and this is something that the courts
bicker over. So really, making any kind of strong claim one way or
the other is a bit silly. I retract all my previous claims about the
nodejs brand.
You can definitely fork the code, put a new logo on it, call it
something else, sell it, sublicense it, release it under the DWTFPL,
or anything else. So all of this is kind of a non-issue, imo.
> Joyent is a private for-profit organization, which does the bidding of
> its unnamed owners.
No, it's owners all have names.
http://www.joyent.com/about/management/
http://www.joyent.com/about/board/
> There are no restrictions on what they may do with
> node.js. Obviously, their ideas and the vision for node.js can be
> completely noble and totally unselfish. Or they may have totally
> different plans.
Seriously, think about this. What if Ryan had written the list to
say, "I've started up a company called NodeJS, taken some investment,
and hired Isaac. My new company owns the nodejs brand, and the CLA
points to it now."
How would that be any different?
Can we go back to talking about semicolons and promises?
--i
It doesn't really matter to whom the CLA is assigned as long as node
itself is published under the MIT license. Right now anyone (me, you,
and Microsoft) can start publishing Node under a proprietary license,
but we generally aren't afraid of that happening because everyone will
happily ignore the proprietary 'fork' and keep on contributing to the
libre version.
The real risk IMHO is that Joyent hires the most skilled and active
Node contributors and exercises control over them. That this is a risk
indeed was shown by the ExtJS license change trick; it succeeded not
because they could change the license (everyone could have) but
because they could develop their semi-closed version of Ext much
faster than the community could maintain the open version. Another
example: the development of APC (an open php accelerator) has been
slow because Zend's PHP engineers wouldn't work on a feature competing
with one of Zend's own proprietary products.
But this is really a luxury problem. Right now a company is paying
people to work on a project that you love and get to use for free. If
you're afraid of Joyent, hire some node developers yourself. Or pray
that HP will :-)
- Bert
On 11/10/2010 02:33 PM, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
>> Joyent is a private for-profit organization, which does the bidding of
>> its unnamed owners.
>
> No, it's owners all have names.
> http://www.joyent.com/about/management/
> http://www.joyent.com/about/board/
Sorry, but I have to ask: do you understand the difference between
managers, directors, board members, and owners? Being an officer may or
may not indicate that a person in question is an owner of the company,
and so on. Seriously, think about it.
The only ownership information I know of comes from
http://www.joyent.com/about/ --- "Joyent is privately held and backed by
Greycroft Partners and Intel Capital". If you still think managers and
board members on those pages are owners in charge (or have a reliable
information on that), please talk to your superiors to update the About
page with better information.
>> There are no restrictions on what they may do with
>> node.js. Obviously, their ideas and the vision for node.js can be
>> completely noble and totally unselfish. Or they may have totally
>> different plans.
>
> Seriously, think about this. What if Ryan had written the list to
> say, "I've started up a company called NodeJS, taken some investment,
> and hired Isaac. My new company owns the nodejs brand, and the CLA
> points to it now."
>
> How would that be any different?
The difference is obvious: your scenario is a hypothetical "what if..."
situation, while absorbing by Joyent is already happened.
Personally I don't worry too much about it, but in order to quell the
fears, it is better to prevent both of situations (ate by Joyent, or
Ryan going crazy) and shelter the project under non-profit entity
charged with nurturing it rather than going over "what if..." stuff.
> Can we go back to talking about semicolons and promises?
Ohhhh, I love promises of semicolons! ;-)
Cheers,
Eugene
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dean Landolt <de...@deanlandolt.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:40, Paul Querna <pqu...@apache.org> wrote:Actually, according to the terms of the license, you could call it
> 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.
"NodeJS". It's not the PHP license.This falls under trademark (even if the name isn't a registered trademark you can claim that you have been using it exclusively and therefor own it).Spot on. There actually exists the concept of common law trademark. But more to the point, Joyent could at any point trademark the ever-loving shit out of the node brand. This would not necessarily be a bad thing -- protecting the brand could be a very thing for the community. My point was that if Joyent did turn evil and close up the license they most certainly would get these trademarks and enforce them.Trademark is not covered by the copyright license and in fact cannot be licensed in any kind of open sourcey way because trademark is fucked up and crazy law.Dude, what? Trademark is easily the most sane of our intellectual property laws -- so much so that it's not really an intellectual property law at all but really a consumer protection law to prevent fraudulent labeling (marking) and consumer confusion. It is true that a trademark has to be enforced to be maintained, but this can be a good thing (no orphaned works). It definitely can be used in an open sourcey way -- it's only slightly complicated by the requirement for it to be used in commerce (but this is still applicable to many open source projects). Document and abide by a liberal mark usage policy and you're good to go.The enforcement requirement is incredibly rigid because you can't "enforce" your own terms of the usage, you actually have to enforce that every usage is explicitly permitted which is impossible in an open source context.
On Nov 10, 10:31 pm, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Bert Belder <bertbel...@gmail.com> wrote:Okay, sure, you would need to add a little bit of your own, but that's
> > It doesn't really matter to whom the CLA is assigned as long as node
> > itself is published under the MIT license. Right now anyone (me, you,
> > and Microsoft) can start publishing Node under a proprietary license,
>
> No, you can't.
>
> You can create a proprietary product that includes node code but you cannot
> release the code itself under a different license or copyright owner.
just a technicality.
BTW, suggestion to Joyent: keep developing the 'community edition',
charge money for the closed-source 'corporate edition' with proper SSL
support.
(PS: this is just a joke, I'm not implying that Joyent may actually
consider this)
--
--
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Bert Belder <bertb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
You can change the license of the portions that you create or change.
If your new project contains a substantial portion of node's code,
then it needs to have the license included with any source code
distributions.
But you can compile node, put it on a CD, and say that no one has the
right to even look at it. That's explicitly allowed.
You can also put a little license agreement that says you don't have
the right to do anything with any of this code, and that it uses
substantial portions of nodejs under the following license: $(cat
node/LICENSE)
You can't change the license *of node itself* (or "substantial"
portions thereof), but that's hardly necessary if you can change the
license of whatever it is that you're releasing.
The MIT license isn't a no-op. But it's not much more.
There is basically nothing that you can't do with Joyent at the helm
that you could do before. This whole discussion is academic, except
also boring and no one's learning anything.
--i
On 11/11/2010, at 8:58 AM, Tim Caswell wrote:
> They have :D
That, Bert, Is Tim speaking from experience as an employee :D
It's clear what didn't happen here, and that is that the community
didn't get excited about this partnership. It was like meeting the
"right now" person instead of the right person. No offense is intended
and this is purely observational, but the lack of a groundswell of
support and silence from many says that the announcement has had a
slightly chilling effect on the community.
If the author and other contributors finally got some help and
financial support for their hard work then that seems like a positive
thing (for Joyent too), but given what could have been this seems like
a missed opportunity, and instead we have good people who now have to
toe the company line with regard to honest and open communications.
Node has been paying ryan (the lead developer) for the past few months
(I'm not sure exactly how many, but I know it's close to a year) to work on
Node.js. Recently they hired Isaac, and pay him too, to work on Node.
So, Joyent is actually giving financial support to node.
As for other contributors, I believe there's a few things in progress, however,
a lot of us are actually hired by other companies, such as Mikeal, Tim, TJ,
and myself to work on node and projects relating to it's continued development.
Yours,
Micheil Smith
--
BrandedCode.com
Ted Young
radicalDesigns
(415) 738 0456
t...@radicaldesigns.org
- benoît
Once again, felixge nicely sums up the issue and its rational conclusion.
--i
For example, the Dojo Foundation is a 501(c)(6) non-profit foundation
(so-called "business league"). IIRC "501(c)(6)" --- is a reference to an
IRS code section 501. The Apache Software Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation (so-called "charitable organization"),
incorporated in Delaware. Again "501(c)(3)" is another reference to the
same document.
Again, I didn't register any of those myself, and cannot tell how much
it costs, but I know that good lawyers who understand non-profits are
hard to find, and the process (the approval from IRS) takes a lot of
paperwork and a lot of time.
But all of this is a moot point now. My understanding is that Ryan's
decision is a done deal, which was officially announced on this list,
and now it is up to Joyent to decide what to do with their new property.
Somehow I don't see them rushing to existing non-profit foundations, or
founding new ones.
Cheers,
Eugene Lazutkin
http://lazutkin.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to nod...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+un...@googlegroups.com.