[Ofa_boardplus] OFA and Open Source

[Hefty, Sean]

This is my personal opinion only.

If the discussion is framed around developing software to meet application needs, then I don't really see any reason to call out open source.  If open source is a user requirement, then OFA should naturally try to meet that need.  Likewise, if there are application needs to include the software in proprietary products, OFA should strive for license(s) capable of supporting that.  If users require functionality in Linux distros, then OFA should pursue meeting the requirements of the distro.  I don't see a single answer here, unless OFA severely limits its scope.

Dropping too low into implementation details, such as calling out a specific license to use, can be counter-productive.

- Sean


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ofa_boardplus [mailto:ofa_boardplus- 
> bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grun
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:51 AM
> To: ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org,
> <ofa_boardplus at lists.openfabrics.org>
> Subject: [Ofa_boardplus] OFA and Open Source
> 
> I want to find closure on one open source/dual license item discussed 
> today.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that there is broad agreement in the value of open source.
> There is also some demand to continue to maintain dual licensing.
> 
> *	In the early days, OFA code (called OFS) was maintained in an
> OFA repo created per the bylaws.
> 
> 	*	Hence the OFA could enforce the dual license provisions
> because the OFA controlled the maintainer of that repo.
> 
> 
> 
> *	But since OFS was open source, anybody could fork the repo and
> effectively deprecate the OFA repo, which is what happened.
> 
> 	*	Once the open source community made the choice to fork the
> code and assign maintainers, the OFA could no longer rigorously 
> enforce dual license provisions, except by a gentleman’s / 
> gentlewoman’s agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *	The OFA could not have prevented that from happening.
> 
> 	*	There are reasons why the community chose to do so (e.g.
> dissatisfaction with an absentee maintainer or other reasons) that 
> perhaps the OFA could address
> 	*	But at the end of the day, there is no legal agreement that
> would prevent that from happening if someone were motivated to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> *	Hence, in my view, the notion of losing control is illusory,
> since no such control exists, because OFS was open source.
> 
> 
> 
> Please educate me if this isn’t accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> -Paul
> 
> 
> 
> Advanced Technology Group
> 
> Cray, Inc.
> 
> Office  – (503) 620 – 8757
> 
> Mobile – (503) 703 - 5382
> 
>