Re: Re: cvs: CVSROOT / avail loginfo

Dan Scott wrote:

On 29/11/2007, Daniel Brown <parasane@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 29, 2007 5:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com> wrote:

No, it is not more important. 99.9% of PHP users don't care what process we have, they care about how well PHP works for them. If we had best process in the world but no support for what people need - people won't use PHP just to commend us for oh so good process. Process is important, but it's a *tool*, not the *goal*.

    Actually, I believe the latest Gallup Poll sponsored by CNN put

that number at 97.3%. ;-P

    Besides, as I read the message you quoted, my understand was that

Pierre was inferring that it's more important for the community to have standardized guidelines for contributions, rather than bend to the whim of one party: in this case, IBM.

Ok, Kreskin - assuming you're as out of the loop as most of the rest of us, if this is purely an IBM thing, why are MySQL AB employees signing up for this (see CVS account request from Jay Pipes)? MySQL AB has its own CLA for contributions to the MySQL code base: http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Contributor_License_Agreement. Maybe they're the ones pushing for a CLA this time around.

No, MySQL is not pushing for CLAs to be used for PHP core components. MySQL is the owner of the MySQL code base. That is why we require our contributors to sign CLAs (Contributor License Agreements); otherwise, we would not be in the position to offer our server in the same form dually licensed both under the GPL and under commercial licenses. We have always developed MySQL with this central control, and our ecosystem is aware of it. With PHP, the situation is different. The foundation of PHP was laid by Rasmus Lerdorf together with a large group of independent developers, and the central parts of PHP underly a different license and copyright regime from MySQL. Given this different licensing background, we understand that core PHP developers don't favour CLAs. They grew PHP without CLAs and without one single, commercial copyright holder. And they see no milestone event absolutely requiring CLAs at this point. At the same time, we do understand that from the point of those who advocate CLAs, CLAs are the default way for achieving clarity on IP ownership. That said, from our perspective, there is no compelling need for substantial change from status quo. -Jay