Merge / join / collaboration with APOSIN - https://aposin.org

[MarkusTiede]

It'd be helpful knowing the status / overlap with associations like https://aposin.org and whether there are plans how to collaborate.

[MarkusTiede]

At the moment we'd rather like to use well-proven industry collaboration container such as #7 than directly joining separate, self-defined governance frameworks such as the one from APOSIN due to the fact of already existing world-wide acceptance of these #7 container.

In our (my) opinion it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel at this collaboration point.

I'd really like to understand the reasons behind establishing these self-defined "Governance Charter" - why this is necessary rather than re-using what's already existing; whereby it's also possible to adjust the rules an e.g. Eclipse Working Group is organized.

[MarRothm]

The main reason why we decided to go for our own container is the fact that all major OSS foundations are US based. In the age of trade wars we do not want to be dependent on US legislation where possible. The option to move into an existing foundation remains anyway.

[MarkusTiede]

@MarRothm: Thanks for the quick feedback, details and clarification! I'm neither a lawyer nor a license expert but I known that one of the main interest e.g. of the Eclipse Foundation is to protect their members exactly from risks like that.

E.g. one of the reasons to publish the EPL 2.0 was to allow a jurisdictions outside of the USA.

The Eclipse Foundation itself is based in Canada.

In addition to that ...

[...] the way things work at the Eclipse Foundation, the Foundation itself 
does not acquire any rights to the contributions. This is very different 
from other organizations like the FSF, OpenJDK, or the Apache Software 
Foundation. Eclipse uses a licensing model sometimes referred to as 
symmetrical inbound/outbound licensing, where contributors license their 
code directly to the users (recipients) of their contributions. Our approach
requires us to ensure that all of our contribution agreements provide all 
necessary grants because we at the EF don’t have any rights to 
re-license contributions. [...]

Source: https://eclipse-foundation.blog/2018/11/05/new-eclipse-foundation-committer-and-contributor-agreements/

Which means (to me / us): the Eclipse Foundation is not actually a rights holder (apart IMHO from trademark acquired / transferred from / to the Foundation). For the artifacts you provide you remain the holder of the intellectual property (IP).

[MarRothm]

Sorry for mixing up US and Canada. Should not happen, I know.
However, the foundation itself is based on local (non-European law) which we do not favor. If benefits should overcame the downsides we are open to moving. For the beginning, we want to steer the projects according to our own rules. I can understand that some do not like that. Discussion in the community will show the future way.

[MarkusTiede]

Sure - no problem: thanks for stepping in the conversation!