[Fiware-technical-committee] FIWARE Dev Requirements : Update

[Stefan Gessler]

Hi Juanjo, all,

I do see the rationale behind the clause, which actually is valid.
We all want to avoid GEs which have limited functionality and only work with ‘in-GE-purchases’.
But we all have somehow commercial interests. And the clause is a serious obstacle for the provisioning of, e.g., tailored solutions or professional services. So, yes, we also had an issue with it.

I think simply the possibility to ban a GE from the repository and withdraw the ‘FIWARE’ label could suffice to prevent the feared misuse.

Best  Stefan

-------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Gessler
Project Manager and Data Protection Officer
NEC Laboratories Europe GmbH
Kurfuersten Anlage 36
D-69115 Heidelberg
GERMANY

phone +49 6221 4342 114
fax +49 6221 4342 155
email: stefan.gessler at neclab.eu<mailto:stefan.gessler at neclab.eu>

Registered at Amtsgericht Mannheim, Germany, HRB728558 (VAT: DE313703076)
Managing Director: Dr. Jürgen Quittek

From: fiware-technical-committee-bounces at lists.fiware.org [mailto:fiware-technical-committee-bounces at lists.fiware.org] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Freitag, 14. September 2018 19:26
To: José Manuel Cantera; FIWARE TSC
Cc: Jason Fox
Subject: Re: [Fiware-technical-committee] FIWARE Dev Requirements : Update


Hi,a

  This clause was intended to cover the concern of certain partners who are arguing that, when Affero GNU GPL is adopted as open source license, then the owner of the software has the right to have its own private version of the product and implement in that "internal" private copy enhancements they develop but they are not forced to make public (because are changes on the private version).

  While I'm not sure the concern is valid, the clause somehow push the FIWARE GE owner to commit publicly that they don't plan to do such a thing and they will make publicly available any changes on the software they develop.

  You may argue that it cannot be checked, but the owner has to be careful because if they are found they hadn't respect the clause then anyone could sue them.

  That's the rationale.

  Cheers,

  Juanjo

On 14/09/2018 14:08, José Manuel Cantera wrote:
Dear all,

I’ve transcripted mostly all Juanjo’s comments to a PR to the Dev Guidelines.

There is one controversial addition made by Juanjo that was not added, yet:

·        The organization(s) owning IPRs on the whole software is (are) making publicly available on the GitHub repo(s) associated to the product all changes developed on the product, i.e., it (they) don’t retain any changes in a private version of the product.

IMHO, that is somewhat unrealistic, it is difficult / impossible to be checked and may hamper people from contributing software that may have a part which is not open source.

I think such issue can be discussed during next TSC

Thanks,

Best


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-technical-committee/attachments/20180921/eccf92c6/attachment.html>