Re: [Action Required] glibc decision to use CTI services.

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi Paul,

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:59:11PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2023-08-30 10:31, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >I believe the LF has already agreed to implement the hosting entirely with
> >free software.
> 
> Where is this agreement written down? I didn't see it in the URLs
> mentioned at the start of this thread.
> 
> Too often it is tempting to use non-free software in these
> enterprises, and we need to have an agreement and a commitment about
> an enforcement mechanism that detects and repairs things if somebody
> falls victim to this temptation (and of course that guides people
> away from succumbing to the temptation in the first place). This
> detection and enforcement mechanism has to be usable by glibc
> software contributors and maintainers, not just by the CTI
> providers.
> 
> As I'm new to this (I just read yesterday that a decision is wanted
> by today) I'll vote NAY until I see something more binding about
> this important issue.

What I understand from the earlier GTI proposal last year (which
caused so much drama around the 2022 Cauldron [1]) nothing about this
was written down.

The idea was to set up a directed fund operated by the Linux
Foundation. Paying members of the Linux Foundation would then be able
to put money into this fund in exchange for board seats. The community
would get an advisory role on how to spend these funds.

One proposal was to use some of these funds to have the Linux
Foundation IT team provide shared services which they already provide
for the linux kernel project. The LF IT team was asked to only use
Free Software to provide those services. And that if Free Software
versions of necessary tools are missing, to work with Free Software
supporters to develop Free Software alternatives. But no agreement
about using Free Software was made when funds are spend any other way.

I cannot tell whether this new CTI proposal has fixed these flaws
because I was not involved. But I can tell you what we did for
Sourceware to address these issues and what has been written down.

Sourceware is a Software Freedom Conservancy member project [2]. The
SFC accepts earmarked donations for Sourceware from anybody,
individuals, corporations or grant organizations. The SFC does receive
a handling fee for providing the Fiscal Sponsorship services [3] and
so the project avoids non-profit administrivia. This money will be
spend according to the mission of the SFC to support community-driven
free software.

Sourceware community is represented by the Sourceware Project
Leadership Committee [4]. The Sourceware PLC makes all financial
decisions. The PLC includes (old) overseers, hosted project
representatives, steering committee and GNU maintainers. The current
members are Elena Zannoni, Ian Lance Taylor, Ian Kelling, Frank
Ch. Eigler, Christopher Faylor, Jon Turney, Tom Tromey and me.

The Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement [5] between the SFC and Sourceware
states that for projects Sourceware hosts everything will be
distributed solely as Free Software and that we will publish all
services as free software. We follow a conflict of interest policy
[6].

Cheers,

Mark

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/908638/
[2] https://sfconservancy.org/news/2023/may/15/sourceware-joins-sfc/
[3] https://sfconservancy.org/projects/services/
[4] https://sourceware.org/mission.html#plc
[5] https://sourceware.org/Conservancy-Sourceware-FSA.pdf
[6] https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conflict-of-interest-policy.html