[Koha] Support for Koha

[Chris Cormack]

2009/8/9 Darrell Ulm <darrellulm at smfpl.org>:
> Chris Cormack <chris at ...> writes:
>
>> content, but to contend that Krishnan was trying to say that there
>> should be no commercial interests involved with Koha is just totally
>> missing the point. He was saying that being part of the community is
>> better than locking yourself off.
>>
>> Chris
>>
> Chris,
>
> Right, I do see his point, and that is why I was making the RedHat point.
>
> RedHat has done several things with Linux to wall itself off from the rest of
> the community. They are not at all as open as Debian. However, they are involved
> in the One Laptop Per Child Project and have done a great deal for Linux. Their
> huge IPO fueled open source development not only in Linux but across the board.
>
> Yes, RedHat walled itself off in several instances because they did not want to
> go out of business, but they gave back also. There has to be a quid pro quo
> because developers cannot eat code.
>
> RedHat is not perfect for walling themselves off, and they have. But would Linux
> be as advanced today if it were not for their business model? This is just an
> open question.
>
Ahh I guess we don't agree on the fundamental point that they have
walled themselves off in the same way. All code they develop for the
linux kernel goes back to the linux kernel.
Having value added services, like the syndetics deal that you can get
with Liblime, or the support that Liblime support, or Redhat support
that you get or any of the other Redhat products seem perfectly fine
to me.
The simple fact is that Redhat couldn't wall themselves off with
respect to the Linux kernel, the kernel is under the GPL, and so every
time you get a copy of Redhat, that has been distributed to you under
the GPL.
They have a perfectly valid business model which doesn't involve
forking the kernel.

I agree totally that businesses have a right to pay their employees
and programmers have a right to be paid. I mean I would be a hypocrite
to argue otherwise as I working as a paid employee when I was writing
code for the initial version of Koha. I also agree with both MJ Ray,
and Joshua that sometimes code is unintentionally not committed back.
But I do think that intentionally withholding code to gain some kind
of business advantage, will 1/ not actually result in advantage and 2/
will engender so much bad will it is a much greater threat to the
business itself, than any external threat.

Everyone has the right to be paid for the services they render, if
they wish to be. But Koha is not the product of one person, or one
company, it is thousands and thousands of hours with input from
hundreds of people. Every version benefiting from the version that
existed before (not only the code but the 'brand'), and every new
developer benefiting from the work of the previous developers. Of
course without the guidance and financial support of libraries and
librarians, none of this would have been done.

So I join with Bob when he asked (in another thread) if WALDO could
explain to us why they are wanting to withhold code. And I think if
Liblime made a simple statement saying that "We will not withhold any
Koha code, as soon as its ready it will be committed upstream" This
whole thing would be consigned to a footnote.

Chris