On Aug 21, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Domagoj Babic wrote:
Kurt,
On 8/21/07, Kurt Zeilenga kurt@openldap.org wrote:
I think this is a mischaracterization of the particular action the Foundation took (in off-list email).
The Foundation was presented with a offer to participate in a marketing program. As a matter of policy, such offers are to be rejected and the Foundation, hence, declined your offer.
It our correspondance with you, we noted that our statement declining your offer in no way impacts licenses the OpenLDAP Foundation has granted regarding the use and/or distribution of OpenLDAP Software. That is, you can continue to use OpenLDAP Software under the terms of the copyright and license statements. No special license is need to perform static checking of OpenLDAP Software.
Subsequent to this, you asked whether it would be okay to send an additional report to the list. The Foundation responded that you need no special permission to submit additional messages to OpenLDAP mailing lists.
To summarize: you made an offered reports with strings; we rejected the strings. No one has precluded you from submitting further reports for discussion. Just no strings, please.
Heh, there are no free rides - you would like to get the reports, but you are not ready to give anything in return.
The Foundation is simply not willing or able to offer any consideration in exchange for contributions, yours or those of others. Contributions are expected to be made freely.
Over the years, has been offered many contributions in exchange for consideration. Without regard to the size or shape of the consideration, we've declined all such offers. As we decline your offer for contribution in exchange for consideration.
We also routinely reject requests for the Foundation or Project to join this or that effort. Our policy is that while individuals are free to join whatever efforts they might choose to join, the Foundation shall remain neutral to external efforts. The Foundation shall not play favorites.
Years of research have been invested in Calysto (and its sub-parts, like Spear theorem prover), running checks takes significant computational resources, and finally, I spend significant amounts of my own time filtering and pre-analyzing the reports for you.
Your comments, in my opinion, belittle not only the significant investment others have made to the OpenLDAP Project, but belittle the significant investments others have made in direct response to your contribution.
All investment, small or large, direct or indirect, in the OpenLDAP Project is appreciated.
Your contributions are appreciated.
I asked for only two things: prompt feedback and adding logo to the web page.
Regarding feedback. You are free to submit messages to project mailing lists or not, others are free to respond or not. The OpenLDAP Foundation can no more require you to submit a message than it can require others to respond to it. So the Foundation simply cannot, and will not, offer "prompt feedback" or even "feedback". What feedback is provided is provided by individuals as they freely choose to provide.
Regarding the logo. You ask for consideration (logo placement) in exchange for contributions. We reject contributions requiring consideration.
That's not _really_ a marketing request.
IIRC, it was you who first used the term "marketing" in this thread.
Anyways, doesn't matter,
We're certainly are not going to abandon our principles to gain your contributions.
there are plenty of other projects out there willing to collaborate.
No comment.
I'd also like to reply to Pierangelo in this email:
On 8/21/07, Pierangelo Masarati ando@sys-net.it wrote:
I believe he said the project is not interested in receiving plain reports just for the purpose of debugging Calysto
Quid pro quo. I help you debug your code.
quid pro quo [WordNet] n : something for something; that which a party receives (or is promised) in return for something he does or gives or promises [syn: {quid}]
Contributions here are expected to be made freely. That means you may not receive anything, you are certainly not promised anything, in return for the something you give. So, in that sense, there is no 'quid pro quo' here.
Nothing personal here as well.
Regards, Kurt