Interesting article that explains the differences between open source licenses and governance models and why governance is so misunderstood yet important in assessing true openness...

They have an interesting governance model picture in the article.

No real comment except, thanks. It's a really good article!

Tim

This may be really helpful for my presentation, thanks!

Thanks for sharing. Too bad there's no 'thanks' button in this sub forum.

I'm thinking this actually would have worked under General.

Yes, any moderator who want to move it to "general" please feel free.

I think quim adressed some of this before. And in essence said Do you expect Nokia to spend millions of dollars and then give you as mere communty members something like a detailed roadmap....because they have competitors and such...

However, I dont expect this. Nokia is a for profit corporation and acts only in the best interest of its shareholders...and if their interest line up with worthy causes, then all the better..

But I think these questions are worth asking...(even though we know the answer, because it stimulates conversation and hopefully understanding what this open community is about at its core)...

Are code check-ins publically accessible (and on a realtime basis) ?
- Is the product roadmap publically available (and how far does it stretch) ?
- Are any of the above accessible to members only ? Are there any fees or contractual commitments (NDAs, etc) required for members?
- Who has access to check-in code (and what is the process for check-ins) ?
- What is the arbitration process in case there is a conflict between two contributions to the source code ?
- Who has the authority to release code and binaries (and how is the release schedule determined)?
- Who gets to decide if a contributed component is optional or mandatory (downstream influence)?
- How is the roadmap formed ? What is the process and who has voting rights ?
- Are IP rights (patents, copyrights, etc) of contributions maintained or automatically transferred?
- Are there any support implications for parties who contribute source code ?
- Are there any safe harbour provisions for contributors to the source code ?

I do not truly think governance is as importance as license. I say this because whatever method ends up with the best final piece of software is best. The reason the license becomes important is for the purpose of Derivatives, and also safety, meaning knowing exactly what your computer is doing. If you have access to the source code and can make derivatives of said software freely then the issue of governance only applies to the "trunk" of the software. You could always fork it and use a different model.

Just clicked Thanks !

Ok, moved to General.

Tim