Replies: 6 comments 26 replies
-
|
(reproducing some of the remarks I've made on IRC for posterity here on GitHub) It has been suggested that jj could be "donated" by Google to a legal entity like the Linux Foundation or Apache. Personally I would be fine with jj being under the stewardship of the Linux Foundation, moreso than Apache but either is better than Google. Apache has a similar CLA but Apache at least is an organization that I can see myself having some influence on policy and governance within; not so with Google. However, I do object to this framing in general. What exactly is there for Google to donate? Google does not own the copyright, even from contributors who have signed the CLA, with the exception of the contributions from Google employees who have separately signed a copyright assignment agreement. As far as I'm aware "jujutsu" is not trademarked, either. The software's intellectual property is jointly held by all of its contributors, not by Google, so what material property does Google actually have the right to "donate" to anyone? At best they can assert stewardship (something that they currently officially disclaim) and then "spiritually" transfer that stewardship to someone else. I don't really think this project needs to belong to a foundation, though, and the overhead of getting one to agree to take it and doing some kind of formal hand-over seems entirely unnecessary. The material problem is really just that @martinvonz is in charge of this project and Google requires employees who are in charge of free software projects to use the CLA, and the most prescient solution is for Google to agree to let @martinvonz, on his authority as the maintainer, remove the Google CLA requirement (perhaps instituting the DCO instead), and then continue to contribute to this project and its governance not as Google's proxy but on equal terms as everyone else. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thank you for working on it! ❤️ Separately from the main issue of this thread, if you end up openly publishing some documents about why the DCO is sufficient or insufficient, how the new regulations affect open source, and so on, that would be interesting to me and hopefully valuable more generally. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Re the side discussion about Google accounts (also separate from the main issue of this thread), this is based on a vague memory and a tiny bit of research, but I think it might be possible to register a separate personal Google account just to sign the CLA. You might need to use its address to your GitHub account, but you otherwise don't need to use it. So, whether or not it's the case for the real person in this thread, if your only problem with signing the CLA were that you have a school-provided Google account that can't do it, this might be a completely legitimate way around it. For example, here are some quotes from https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/40695 that suggest to me that Google doesn't have a problem with a person having multiple accounts (though, of course, I can't speak for them nor guarantee anything). The bolding is mine.
( Note from ilyagr: Of course, for CLA purposes you'd probably need to create a separate account under your real name; it shouldn't be a parody account )
Again, I can't speak for them, but it seems that creating a personal account in a addition to a school account is fine (unless done in order to do other prohibited things, on the level of scamming people). In less official places on the internet, people say that there seems to be a soft limit of ~3-4 Google accounts per phone number. https://support.google.com/accounts/thread/19158171/can-i-have-two-gmail-accounts?hl=en |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yeah, my point was that a CLA discourages contributors both philosophically and practically. While I'm glad Google is considering people who don't want/don't have Google accounts, those who don't want them are probably the same people who don't want a CLA? I, for one, have little intent of signing the CLA whether or not I can. (I might, but not for much beyond all the docs issues I've found over in Dart. I wouldn't write any significant CLA'd code, like over here.)
Yeah, I also have a personal account, but on there I think I recall getting errors about how minors can't access certain services or something (not from the CLA form, but from the Google login). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is a self-imposed limitation by Google. We are petitioning for a third option. Who is overtly responsible for this project is off-topic for this issue, and better handled by the broader governance discussions. This discussion is strictly about the removal of the CLA, and will not accept any substitutes.
Thank you, this is good news. Please keep us updated on the DCO. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I mentioned a few months ago that we were going to discuss project ownership with stakeholders at Google this month. We have now done that. Google supports setting up the governance as proposed. We care a lot about building a healthy community and tool that is successful and useful far beyond Google's own use. We will keep the CLA and continue to own the jj Github org for now, and revisit the option of donating to a foundation later, when the new governance model has been working well for a while. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The CLA and transferring to some foundation are orthogonal. Since this discussion is about the CLA requirement I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to moving this forward. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
If the CLA requirement is imposed by Google, it seems to me that transferring ownership away from Google would indeed be a step toward removing it |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
These two statements completely contradict each other:
… We care a lot about building a healthy community
We will keep the CLA
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi there, I'm in the Google Open Source Programs Office and have been working with Martin and the team. The ultimate goal is, as Martin said, to build a healthy community around the project. Governance is something that a project can implement quickly, and iterate on as needed. Moving to a foundation is a legal process that can sometimes take a year or more, depending upon the foundation home. Yes, a Google-owned project will always have some non-negotiables; but we do recommend projects open up governance as much as possible, while other avenues are explored. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This project is not Google-owned. As some have taken pains to point out, the Google CLA does not include a copyright assignment. And, as Google has taken pains to point out:
Please clarify in what respect jj is a "Google-owned" project, as you state here. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My comment here - #4849 (reply in thread) addresses this |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The mention of a foundation is a red herring here. Nobody's requesting a foundation, and that is entirely off-topic. The requirement to sign a CLA to participate in a "community" can perfectly well be dropped without a foundation (this is how the overwhelming majority of open source projects operate). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@WhyNotHugo One rando user to another: your rhetorical approach on this topic is pretty rigid and argumentative and IMO diminishes your cause. Try rereading what you've written here and see if you find any evidence for a willingness to be patient, to compromise from some perfect outcome to obtain a good one, or to extend any empathy to the circumstances of others involved. "I won't even concede your premise, so I also reject your policy and your steps towards fulfilling that policy" isn't a dialogue, it's an entitled dismissal and it's hostile. Ignoring a messy pile of Reality that is complicating and prolonging the process won't suddenly make that process pan out any faster or better. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What exactly is this fear of a developer “going rouge”? Without a CLA, no single developer can do much damage, given that individual authors continue holding copyright over their contributions.
Granting Google the exclusive ability to override all maintainers and contributors (including the ability to relicense the entire project) isn’t a path building a community. Unless by “community” you mean “fiefdom”.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think everyone is much more concerned about Google "going rogue" than anything else. Which is to say, the only party in this project which has received an exclusive license to go rogue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It's above my pay grade. I hope @jrn or @rdamazio can take over. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
At your "pay grade" we could hire an army of lawyers who would resolve these questions in a heartbeat. Answering questions like this is one of your most important jobs as a Jujutsu maintainer, one that you are uniquely qualified to address. Other maintainers can do code review. Nobody else can go talk to the right people at Google. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
While I’m of your point of view Drew, it’s worth remembering that @martinvonz doesn’t owe us anything. I think your comments are crossing the line from discussion to harassment, and that’s a poor way to convince anyone. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Moving a conversation which has been taking place variously on IRC/Discord and PR comments to a GitHub Discussion.
The CLA requirement is onerous and unduly privileges Google with respect to the governance and maintenance of jj, and it pushes contributors away -- like myself. I don't have a Google account with which to complete the CLA process and I do not want to give Google any special privileges above and beyond what is afforded by the same Apache 2.0 license myself and everyone else is entitled to when receiving this code.
The Developer Certificate of Origin is a better solution for establishing provenance and accountability.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions