[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

From: David Kelly
Subject: Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:55:42 +1200
User-agent: KMail/1.5

On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:53, Dan Kuykendall wrote:
< -- snip -->
> > The other point, which you don't answer is. Why you need the full
> > control over the name?
> >
> >>Also, veto should only be used as a extreme measure.
> >
> > What will be a extreme measure? Have you some examples about this.
> I mentioned one example in IRC. If for example the group wanted to
> switch to eTemplates (eT) for the entire project. I think eT is cool and
> clever, but I dont want it as the solution for phpGW. If phpGW swicthed,
> I would no longer want to work on the project at all. So I would want to
> veto something like this.
> Without veto I would simply fork the project. If we have veto and ceb
> wanted to go against me and cancel my veto, I would fork off with a new
> name and let the rest of you keep phpGW. Otherwise I would make you all
> go find a new name to work under.

This sounds like it is gettting close.  But in order to truly have this 
administered correctly the domain and the trademarks would need to be 
assigned to FSF.  Otherwise, this situation could occur and you could just 
refuse to live by what you have said.

Co-assigning the domain name is not really going to work here as it 
essentially means nothing ... because as soon as you wanted to pull back 
control of the domain from the FSF (for whatever reason) you could - by just 
taking them off the Administrative contract list and changing the passwords 
etc.  So essentially you still control the domain.

>From a commercial perspective the major problem that we (as a company) have 
with a single person controlling the 'brand' (the name itself, the domain and 
the trademarks) is that if we contribute large amounts of business resources 
(e.g. development time etc) to the project then essentially we are building a 
'brand' that is controlled by one person.  We are building someone elses 

So by continuing to hold on to the domains, trademarks etc you restrict the 
progress of the project, as it is very hard for people like me to secure 
support from our Board of Directors to invest time and resources into 
phpgroupware.  I am sure there are many other companies out there who are 
faced with the same situation that ours is faced with.

I can sympathise with you wanting to recieve recognition for your work and I 
think that is important to setup the structures to ensure that this happens 
and continues to happen in the future - but at the same time I think that if 
phpgroupware is going to achieve all that it could be then the 'brand' itself 
needs to be controlled by a neutral third party like the FSF rather than a 
single person.

This would open the doors to commerical entities truly investing in the 
project and as a result the project would be far more robust, secure and 
feature rich than would be possible without this support.

Kind regards
David Kelly
Zeald Ltd

Massey University - E-Centre
PO Box 102-904
North Shore Mail Centre
New Zealand

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]