RE: [Phpgroupware-developers] Re: Standard source code header and php Documentor

[Alex Borges]

> As I pointed out in another mail: it will most probably happen that a
> commercial customers wants us to make some specific motifications (under GPL
> and to be published) which will not fit into the general phpGW line and
> scope. We will not reject such a job. But we will still offer the results to
> the phpGW project. If the community (better: the maintainers of the modules
> involved, I guess) wants the code, fine. If not, fine as well. In that case
> we would have to maintain e.g. a patch set against the latest stable
> version, but that would still be public.

Yes, it does happen. I think this can really be easyly sorted out. The
problem was in the way to approach the community. I think this pretty
much summs up that you guys will:

a) Make money

b) Produce code

c) Contribute the code for the community to review and incorporate where
necesary

This is all good. Ive done it and it works. But you guys will also need
some infrastructural changes (major changes) and, if that is to be
beneficial for you and the community, it will need a better approach
from you to the community.

What i mean is, if you want some infrastructural change, why not try to
make a case with the community, contacting it in a way that is
respectfull of the work already done and showing the benefits of such
changes. Other private enterprises are doing this for years with
phpgroupware. I speak for one of them.

This means also to share some know how of certain markets. For example,
i have a client that needs document indexing capabilities to go with
their groupware and collaborative infrastructure. This is a common need
throughout the world, in every part of the world companies are looking
for ways to attach to ISO-9000/QS standards whose implementation greatly
depends in this kind of technology.

Everyone here can benefit from that knowledge. I dont have a ready
client for it so far, but i already have the technology to go with it
and when the client comes to me, ill be able to make a good case with
the community to have this kind of application evaluated for inclussion
in the api (i hope!). After all, ill deal with the initial expenses, and
most can see where can they benefit from it (if they work in an
environment that requires it or actually sell it).

If the community doesnt want this no matter how hard i try to make my
point, then, and only then, will i consider mantaining an internal
branch. But id really dread this because, no matter that business is
going well, its allways better to have an interested community of users
and developers to help out. It will minimize production costs, making me
more productive, and probably (almost certaintly) ill have to hire some
of the members of the community to help out with it, at least at the
start.


You see, i dont think people are thrown off by the fact that someone
wants to make money from this. Lots here do in one way or another.


> We don't have problems with the CVS access; as long as code submitted
> through the patch submit mechanism is actually evaluated (not necessarily
> incorporated). Obviously it would be nice for our developers personally to
> be listed as contributors (which does not necessarily incluide CVS write
> access), but that's another story.

It would be best if your developers could form part of the community
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT!

> 
> For the copyrights:
> there is one unresolved issue: there is no such thing as assigning a
> copyright (in the sense defined by US laws) in continental Europe, the legal
> system is quite different (only various degrees of usage rights can be
> assigned to someone else, not the "copyright" itself). I'm not a lawyer, so
> I can't decide whether signing a copyright agreement with the FSF North
> America would actually hold any legal power at all for people from Germany
> (and France, e.g.). There is another form of agreement from the FSF Europe
> (FLA) which fits the legal systuation in continental Europe; but again I
> have no idea whether this would have to be assigned to the FSF Europe or the
> FSF North America and what kind of implications it might have if either
> different branches of the FSF are involved or if several diffrent agreements
> are signed. I have approached the FSF Europe last week on this topic (we
> need clarification anyway for other things as well), but I have not received
> any response so far.  
> 

Cooool, that settles it then.

> Regards
> 
> Christian