| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |
| Who | What | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| *** | [LOGGER] has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) | [05:26] | |
| ................................................................................. (idle for 6h42mn) | |||
| mchehab has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab | [12:08] | ||
| ................... (idle for 1h33mn) | |||
| mchehab | FYI, LinuxFoundation announced yesterday their project for fund raising an mentorship: https://communitybridge.org/
It seems they didn't announce yet the crowdfound and mentorship sites... Probably they're adjust some details there | [13:42] | |
| ......................... (idle for 2h4mn) | |||
| *** | ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab` | [15:49] | |
| ..... (idle for 22mn) | |||
| pinchartl | mchehab: that's aligned with what you explained
"The Linux Foundation will underwrite all platform and payment processor fees for the first $10M donated through CommunityBridge, so each of those dollars will go directly to funding projects. After the first $10M, donations will be charged a 5% platform fee plus the payment processor’s fee to cover these costs." I wonder how fast they would reach 10M$ though as it's not per-project, but for the whole platform and I still have absolutely no trust in them when it comes to helping free software projects :-) they're an industry trade organisation, they work for the sole purpose of advancing their members' interests
" CommunityBridge Funding: A crowdfunding service to raise money via donations from individuals and corporations so projects can pay maintainers and developers directly for their development efforts or project expenses. Features include fund matching, best practice badges, and diversity and civility promotions." mchehab: "civility promitions", is that related to the CoC ? s/promitions/promotions/ | [16:11] | |
| ......... (idle for 41mn) | |||
| mchehab | maybe
although LF has a diversity policy a way before Kerne CoC pinchartl: the purpose mentioned at section 501(c) reports says that the purpose is to "include promoting, protecting and standardizing Linux and other OSS" from my side, I have a very positive view of what they've been doing so far, and seems to match the purpose mentioned there I don't agree with your view that their sole purpose is to fulfill their member's interests | [16:57] | |
| pinchartl | the board of directors is made of member companies who pay for that, with the exception of the TAB chair who gets a seat on the LF board
who else can be expected than putting the interest of their members at the foremost priority ? they're a foundation on paper, sure but everybody knows that the documented purpose of 501(c) foundations is mostly for decoration (and that's not specific to the US, it's the same through the world) so, no, I don't trust them to defend free software and to suport that point of view, I'd just point out at the conference fees they're way too high especially given that LF conferences have more or less turned into marketing shows, at least for the keynotes (the keynote slots are sold to sponsors) | [17:02] | |
| mchehab | I never saw any action of them demoting OSS or doing any bad action | [17:05] | |
| pinchartl | really ?
vmware GPL lawsuit vmware getting a seat on the LF board and the LF dropping all involvement in the lawsuit | [17:05] | |
| mchehab | ok, you can argue that the conference prices are high.. I saw a lot of conferences a way more expensive and with a lot less contents | [17:06] | |
| pinchartl | it *could* be a coincidence, but that's hard to believe
the fact that there's worse than them doesn't make them good :-) | [17:06] | |
| mchehab | From where I sit, LF always helped, and even did travel sponsorship for some LinuxTV people that were having troubles to travel
anyway, we agree to disagree on that :-) | [17:09] | |
| pinchartl | again, they're not only doing bad, but at the core of their value is the member's money. they don't work for free software, they work for their members. those members have an interest in Linux, but when the interests of the members clash with free software values, the former win
it's pretty clear when you look at the position of the LF regarding GPL for instance they're more on the BSD side because many members (including vmware) fight agains the GPL s/agains/against/ | [17:11] | |
| mchehab | well, if I want to protect something against GPL violations, I would seek for a law company with works with Open Source, instead of trying to do it via a foundation
this is not the hole I expect them to play - and they also don't mention to help with GPL lawsuits at the 501c forms | [17:15] | |
| pinchartl | except the LF used to fight against GPL violations (they sue for Linux trademark infringement too by the way, don't try to call your company Linux-something), but they stopped when they were pressured by members
they mention "protecting Linux", which goes through fighting against GPL violations | [17:16] | |
| mchehab | license violations will always exist with the current author's right laws...
do those GPL violations currently hurts Linux so badly that they would be come a threat? right now, I don't think so ok, things may change with time Looking at the other side of the coin, do lawsuits help to increase Linux adoption? I don't think so. It could very well produce the reverse effect, making less people use Linux | [17:18] | |
| pinchartl | is giving up on the GPL the right way to protect Linux ? no, it isn't | [17:23] | |
| mchehab | I mean, on a scenario where trying to use Linux would cause lawsuits, people will tend to use something else | [17:23] | |
| pinchartl | lawsuits are a last resort option
and the job of the LF would be to communicate on that | [17:23] | |
| mchehab | from my side, they're doing a good work on that | [17:24] | |
| pinchartl | using Linux doesn't cause lawsuits. taking Linux code, creating a closed-source product out of it, and repeatedly refusing to come into compliance with the license does
they're not doing a good work, as they're doing *no* work on the GPL front | [17:24] | |
| mchehab | it is better to convince companies to stop GPL violations than to use the legal system to enforce | [17:24] | |
| pinchartl | they may tell people they need to comply with the license
but they do nothing if they refuse to so it's not credible at all | [17:24] | |
| mchehab | what I expect from LF would be to tell people about GPL - and this they're doing - as far as I see
I don't think it should be their hole to do lawsuits | [17:25] | |
| pinchartl | "there's this license, you should be a good kid and comply, but if you don't, nothing will happen" | [17:25] | |
| mchehab | this is something that other foundations at the ecosystem already handle | [17:25] | |
| pinchartl | very effective strategy | [17:25] | |
| mchehab | pinchartl: it is very unlikely that you'll convince me - and it is also very unlikely that I'll convince you :-) | [17:26] | |
| pinchartl | they have a board member working for a company that knowingly infringes on the GPL
that's called a conflict of interest | [17:26] | |
| mchehab | clearly, we have different levels of expectations from LF | [17:26] | |
| pinchartl | that's fine, I'm used to us having different views on pretty much everything :-) | [17:27] | |
| mchehab | :-)
of course if one day they (as LF, not as their individuals) start defending closed source and saying that open source should be abandoned, then I'll change my mind :-) | [17:28] | |
| pinchartl | come on, I'm sure you know that's not how it happens
you can't come up with such an argument in good faith | [17:29] | |
| mchehab | I know what you're meaning
yeah, lots of things will happen before something as extreme as the scenario I painted and other things could make up my mind but, so far, LF fulfills my expectations btw, one good friend of mine works as a FSF representative... for him, even what we do on media is closed source, when we accept a driver that requires a closed source firmware ;-) from my side, I avoid discussing about those things with him, as he believes that the only foundation that properly represents open source is the FSF (he doesn't even like the term open source) | [17:30] | |
| ............ (idle for 55mn) | |||
| pinchartl | open source software and free software are two different things
(and both exist, of course) | [18:31] | |
| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |