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

[Chris Johns]

On 29/9/21 6:38 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
> 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 appreciate the customer may want this however my role is to ensure the process
makes sense for the whole community. I am still not sure.

It will be your customer's decision to have the changes merged and for the repo
to absorb them and maintain them. They always have the right to hold on to the
changes and maintain them if they do not agree with the outcome of this process.

>> 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.

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.

I also have other legal concerned I do not wish to discussion here.

> 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.

Close, I would remove the "extra" words. Maybe:

  * May 2020
    - FOO Friers LLC
    - BSP for FOO Chip

Key is adding what is needed while keeping the info minimal.

> What kind or order would we use? Just chronological? 

Yes. We will need to generate something that is placed at the start to explain
the contents and any limitations and legally protects the project and other
contributors.

> 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?

No.

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

Nothing at all. We should only be adding information in a single place.

>> 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.

Sorry, a non-profit does not work that way as I stated above so no attribution
can happen. This makes attribution fundamentally unfair.

> 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

There are practical issues with doing this. I also see no value so this is a no
from me adding an RF entry. For example, who dives back into the file to edit
this if it changes? Who changes these entries that are no longer valid? Can we
even make such a change?

>> 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.

Yes and this is part of my concern. I prefer we do not break new ground and we
find there are real issues we are not aware of.

> 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.

Yeap

> Maybe I used the wrong search terms?

I do not think so, it matches what I found.

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.

Chris