[PATCH rtems-docs] eng: Add rules for attribution

[Chris Johns]

On 30/9/21 5:33 pm, Thomas DOERFLER wrote:
> Am 30.09.21 um 02:23 schrieb Chris Johns:
>> On 29/9/21 6:38 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
>>>
>>> To be honest: If sponsored work is a legal problem, we have that with or without
>>> a note in the files. It's only more visible with a note in the files. I don't
>>> think that a legal problem would be avoidable just by not mentioning it.
>>
>> That is not the legal aspect I have in mind. There exists constraints about
>> payments for work done in relation to tax law and this varies around the world.
>> A notice could be taken as evidence. For example a functioning non-profit such
>> as the RTEMS Foundation can accept donations and how that money is spent is up
>> to the foundation. The contributor has no input on that process otherwise it is
>> tax avoidance. This area is strict and the governance is important. I will let
>> you consider the relationship between fair attribution for the whole community
>> and those contributing to a non-profit.
> 
> Surely this must be considered, but OTOH RTEMS code is definitively a project
> which combines non-profit and with-profit people to create and maintain code,
> especially since the birth of the project was with-profit.
> 
> So if it comes to contributions e.g. from our company: Yes, they are created
> with profit.

This is fine. An organisation and their tax system have well established
processes to audit and collect the related tax. Contributing to a non-profit to
complete task X or any directed task then claiming that payment as a tax
deduction is not allowed. That loop hole was closed many years ago.

> Certain areas are handled non-profit. Maybe the question then is, how to
> properly distinguish them.

For a non-profit it is the role of that organisation and not this project. It
would be concerning if the project started to take on that role. The rules
around a non-profit and it's sponsors are for it to administer.

>>> A foundation wouldn't change the problem discussed here. Don't get me wrong: I
>>> would love to see the foundation. But I don't think that the foundation would be
>>> the the same as the RTEMS open source project from a legal point of view. It
>>> would only be another (much needed) sponsor of work and infrastructure.
>>
>> Sorry, a non-profit does not work that way as I stated above so no attribution
>> can happen. This makes attribution fundamentally unfair.
>>
> I agree that a "sponsored by RTEMS Foundation" entry wouldn't make sense,
> because the whole idea of the Foundation is to maintain RTEMS.
> 
> But, regarding the "sponsored by" entry, I wouldn't talk about fairness. 

Maybe fairness is not a good word in this case.

> In the
> past we always had the question "who is using RTEMS" and in many cases had to
> shrug shoulders because we either don't know or shouldn't tell. If RTEMS user
> companies officially ask to be visible, I think this is something we should push
> and not block, right?

I welcome a user placing a "power by RTEMS" on their box or in there marketing
or documentation.

>> I have to say I not entirely comfortable with this happening and I will not be
>> encouraging additions. If Thomas wishes to discuss this further I suggest he
>> reaches out to me personally.
> 
> That makes sense, I will try next week when being back at work.

Thanks and please do.

Chris