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

Wed Sep 29 08:38:29 UTC 2021

Am 29.09.21 um 02:40 schrieb Chris Johns:
> On 28/9/21 11:11 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
>> Hello Joel,
>>
>> Am 28.09.21 um 14:48 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 1:40 AM Christian MAUDERER
>>> <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
>>> <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hello Joel,
>>>
>>>      Am 28.09.21 um 01:12 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
>>>       > The Microblaze port is interesting for attribution. I did initial
>>>      work
>>>       > on it. Hesham added to that and got Hello on a board. Alex is
>>>      close to
>>>       > submitting the port in a nice state.
>>>       >
>>>       > This is almost seven years across three developers.. The original
>>>      work
>>>       > predates source code reorganisation. Alex deleted the autoconf
>>>      support
>>>       > and created waf. Hesham and I agreed to convert to BSD-2.
>>>       >
>>>       > When submitted, we decided it was best for Alex to submit a Joel
>>>      patch,
>>>       > then Hesham, then Alex to finish it off. This keeps git blame
>>>      working.
>>>       >
>>>       > Not quite the same topic but related to credit due.
>>>
>>>      But maybe an important extension. Should we replace "sponsored" with
>>>      "sponsored or supported"? That would allow to mention anyone who helps
>>>      in any way, regardless whether it's financial, with information, with
>>>      hobby time or with whatever else.
>>>
>>>
>>> I usually use the word sponsored. Support implies commercial activities the
>>> way I/we tend to use it.
>>>
>>
>> Seems that I picked the wrong word then. Maybe you can help me finding the
>> correct term:
>>
>> The one case is clear: Someone pays that someone else develops for example a
>> driver. I think for that "sponsored" is a good term.
>>
>> Another similar case could be the following: You get help with writing a driver
>> for example with information or some other form of help that doesn't result in a
>> copyright for that person or company. It doesn't involve money or some other
>> form of payment (T-shirts, pizza, ...) so it's not really sponsoring. Despite
>> that it might would be nice to mention them if they want to be mentioned. I
>> think the right location would be the same place like the one we just discuss
>> for sponsoring. What would be a good term for that?
> 
> I think we should take baby steps with this.

OK. I'll concentrate only on the case where some work is really 
sponsored with money. I think a lot of work on RTEMS falls in that 
category. Most of the times the sponsors don't want to appear with a 
name but in my case that caused this discussion they do.

> I have some reservation on where
> this could go and the long term effects. If too widely spread and embedded in
> the source it could be difficult to remove or change if we find an issue in
> doing this.
> 

Understood.

> In a private chat on the subject Gedare suggested a "Supporters" file? This
> could list those who have provided support and wish to be listed. I am avoiding
> sponsorship and other words here on purpose for now. I have no idea what works
> legally around the world.

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.

You mentioned a "Supporters" file as an alternative. That's OK for me 
too. How would that look? Something like

     * 2020: BSP for FOO chip supported by "Some corp"

     * September 2021: "Some corp" supported development of feature X

     * 1995 to 2021: Continuous support of development by company "Some 
corp"

Not sure whether "supported" is the right term in all cases.

What kind or order would we use? Just chronological? What about 
companies that are actively involved in development over a long time 
(especially the ones that appear in the copyright lines)? Should they be 
mentioned?

Same rules like for the sources: No contact information and only a name?

> 
> I do want a working foundation and yes I know that has stalled for reasons
> beyond my control but if that path becomes active I am not sure how that works
> in with this approach.

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.

So in case of a "Supporters" file, the foundation would have a separate 
line like

     * 2021 to present: Continuous support of development and 
infrastructure by the RTEMS Foundation

> 
> I also acknowledge I am not sure what other open source projects do and how they
> handle this. If there are other working examples we can review I would welcome that.

I put some time into finding examples and I found ... not much. I would 
have expected for example a big project like the Linux kernel to have a 
lot of these lines and to have clear rules. But: It's only 38 lines in 
source files that have a "sponsored by". At least one commit has a "This 
patchset has been sponsored by ..." in the commit message. But I didn't 
find any rules.

It's similar for FreeBSD. I found some "sponsored" in the code. Some in 
the commit messages. But I haven't seen any clear rules.

Maybe I used the wrong search terms?

Best regards

Christian

> 
> Chris
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Christian MAUDERER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08

Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/