[Project_owners] New Adoption Policy proposal
ezechico at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 12:39:10 PDT 2007
I agree... completely agree...
- iPhone Application Developer
On 8/13/07, Michael Vincent van Rantwijk, MultiZilla <
mv_van_rantwijk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > Hello project developers,
> > The thread is the start of a new Adoption Policy proposal on MozDev.
> > The current Adoption Policy is more of a informal one and I am proposing
> > a formal one that will eliminate the following problems with the current
> > policy... the main issue at hand is that currently if a project owner
> > has stopped doing any work on there project they have indefinite rights
> > to keep ownership, even if others have made contributions in any fashion
> > to keep the addon working, EG; attachments made to existing un-answered
> This is the way Open Source works, and should work IMHO i.e. the
> original project owner is and stays the owner, whatever you did to help
> your community.
> The thing is that you can't claim copyrights of any given project that
> stalled for whatever reason, but you have the right to fork a given
> project; but you need to make that clear to a) the original project
> owner (who in almost all cases on mozdev.org is the sole developer) and
> b) to your users.
> Anyone willing to fork a project should be aware of the possibility that
> real life events like health, work or even a new relation ship might
> take the project owner off-line from their public appearance on
> mozdev.org, and sometimes for months... like what happened with my dad
> year after year ever since 2001 with the MultiZilla project.
> Let's take the MultiZilla project as an example where I work as "Project
> Team Lead" (see sig) but my father stays the "Project Owner". One
> doesn't have to become the "project owner" you know, yet I can do
> whatever necessary for the project... because people trust me... after
> they have learned to know me over time; and I can assure you that this
> is very important.
> But what if it wasn't me, but someone we don't know? Someone with cruel
> intentions to hurt the project, project owner et all? Who is to blame,
> legally if you want, if something bad happens to/with a given project?
> Giving people CVS access and letting them work as a developer/team
> member might be fine, a good deal for all parties involved, but with
> caution because of the for mentioned possibility.
> Someone should probably also check and review, super review if you like,
> all of your work before it ends up in any public release (We was lucky
> with Philip Chee with this).
> However, becoming the new/sole project owner should be considered
> something completely different; and the main reason for this is that you
> might be credited for something you shouldn't get the credits for (like
> for example the idiot who bought a car in my fathers name, because the
> idiot learned that he would be gone for months).
> Being the project owner won't bring you anything... but responsibilities
> which you still have to proof over time. However, it is fine when the
> original/sole project owner sends in his waiver of approval... because
> he alone is the legal owner of it.
> But let me ask you this: "Why do you need to become the project owner in
> the first place, if you can work on any given Open Source project
> *without* the legal responsibilities that come along with it?"
> Note: Helping the original project owner might be more rewarding
> Michael Vincent van Rantwijk
> - MultiZilla Project Team Lead
> - XUL Boot Camp Staff member
> - iPhone Application Developer
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Project_owners