The corporate hierarchical malarkey that gave Novotny the wherewithal and motivation to do this should be ripped out root and branch, as well as whatever specific job role that currently defines the executive directorship.

I'm not saying Novotny should be fired, simply that the Foundation has demonstrated a corporate behavior fundamentally at odds with its supposed reason for existence.

Respect for community and contributors was obviously not encoded into the design of the organization. That a board exists to rectify, rationalize, or abet mistakes isn't enough. They have to fix the root of the problem, which is that Novotny was able to do this at all. They need to make an explicit and ironclad promise to developers.

They allowed institutional structure to oppose their mission. That won't change with mere words and staffing shuffles.

I’m a bit alarmed by the many issues here. I’ve heard a lot from the maintainers but much from the foundation.

- continued lack of communication - for so many issues to occur to multiple parties paints a picture of it being routine - that no immediate reversals have happened with utmost immediacy - the ethos of the maturity model - the policies apparently being enforced - even now… - for calls to solve things privately

It’s culturally indicative of the foundation’s values whether they know it or not.

A healthy community is one where discussions happen in the open, good and bad.

This is not good, and I’d recommend the community coming together and maybe finding or forming an alternative - which is difficult I know.

I think apache.org could help here.

Yeah, the (continued) lack of communication is not great. But the timing is admittedly pretty poor for the .NET Foundation as well. They just brought on new board members this week. So delays are kinda' expected... but I would have communicated differently.

From the GitHub thread it seems like these projects willingly transferred the copyright to the DNF when they joined; is that not the case? If it is what grounds do they have for being upset?

Copyright is only with respect to the code.

What's being done here is changes to how the project is managed. Basically inserting an upper management over the heads of existing maintainers. AFAIK, this right was not given (or at least the maintainers did not intend to give) to the umbrella org.

Important to note, this extra layer was added without discussing it would be done before or after. The lack of communication eroded trust.

But if you gave away copyright you don't own the project any more. And if you don't own it, you don't own it…

The new owner can do further on how he pleases.

Sad in this case(es) but from a legal standpoint it's very likely like that, I guess (INAL).

Yeah, but a stupid owner does what they did as nuclear options, a smart owner has the power but never use them but convinces people and let them work loosely as long as this is possible.

This is a cooperate thinking applied to a foundation. Is a recipe for failure.

The copyright applies to the source code the copyright is written on. Lawyers then argue who owns the "project" (GitHub organization/repository). For example, the copyright is not applied to the issues in the issue tracker.

But the argument is about whether the .NET Foundation could do such a thing. The argument is whether they should. And, the .NET Foundation chooses that they should take over the projects, project maintainers can make different decisions themselves.

None of this has been decided yet.

I'm pretty sure the copyright is shared, at least that's how I've seen CLA's happen in the past, they grant joint ownership.

Some projects are "contribution" (like you describe) and some are "assignment" (.NET Foundation holds the copyright).

You willingly gave me the key to your garage so that I can mow your lawn with your lawnmower.

I used the key to steal your car.

Then you and I would probably no longer be friends.

They signed over Copyright.

Isn't a better analogy that they willingly gifted away their garage with everything in it under a _promise_ that they can still use the car?

Honestly, to me the only way out seems to exercise the licensee rights and fork.

Nitpick, but in general a verbal promise in exchange for something of value would be considered a legally binding contract in the US.

I think not just US, also Switzerland among other places. But either way, Copyright was signed over, and that has real implications. Although, in this case I gather that initially the Copyright owner for the given project was Microsoft, then some other foundation, and now .NET foundation. So, it's not like the maintenaners signed over anything they had, really. As sad as it is, legally it has never been theirs. Good thing the license protects some freedoms.

Forking is still one way this may resolve. The .NET Foundation can decide to provide other options.

I think if you read the blog post, it'll be clearer.

they didn't transfer copyright, they granted a nonexclusive license

Depends on the project.