Re: [PDO] PDO 2: Request for Comments

Lukas Kahwe Smith writes:
 > I think you could have done a better job making it clear that the CLA is
 > an option, not a requirement.

If there is no CLA, then the code has no assurance of being "clean" IP, 
and some companies may be reluctant to use it.  PHP support and adoption 
among enterprise environments would be hindered as a result.  PHP is 
growing up, and more adoption in the enterprise space would be a good 
thing (tm) because this leads to more support channels, more integration 
with tools and other technology, and more job opportunities for PHP 
hackers.  :-)

 > Also the simple fact that people need to sign something before they get
 > startet has a significant burden

It is true that requiring a CLA may discourage "drive-by" bug fixes from 
one-time contributors.  But it also tends to be true that 99% of the 
work is done by regular contributors.  Signing a CLA is a one-time task, 
and the assurance of "clean IP" that is achieved by using a CLA process 
is probably worth it.

For what it's worth, when I was working on the Zend Framework project, 
we sometimes would see patches submitted in the issue tracker.  In 
almost every case there was no problem if we said, "thanks very much -- 
could you please fax or email a CLA form so we can use your patch?"  
Virtually all of these one-time contributors were willing to comply.

 > (especially since there are items in there like #7,
 > which put a perpetual burden on the contributor).

No, this is not a perpetual burden.  I read #7 to say that *IF* you 
learn anything new about your code (for example, it's actually owned by 
your employer and they haven't granted permission to contribute it), 
then you need to notify the PHP group of this.  But this does not 
obligate you to do anything perpetually (IANAL, so seek your own legal 
advisor).

 > So I do not value the commitment from a company higher than that of any
 > individual.  Someone that just gets allocated is just not the same
 > [as a volunteer community contributor].

True, there's nothing like code that has been developed as a labor of 
love.  But there's a flip side to this too. 

I think we've all seen volunteer community contributors who have good 
intentions but they simply don't have a clue about the technology for 
which they're developing.  Also, we've all seen volunteers who start a 
project and then disappear, leaving it in a state that is incomplete and 
buggy.  And some volunteers implement only a subset of functionality, 
for instance limited to the features they need for a project they're 
working on.

If a corporate vendor decides that they can budget a developer's time to 
work on a PDO driver, and that developer changes jobs, the budget can be 
utilized for another developer's time.  The corporate vendor is also 
more motivated to make sure their PDO driver covers all functionality 
and is kept up to date. 

Though their contribution to free software is genuine, the vendor may be 
doing it to encourage adoption of the latest version of their non-free 
technology.  This is especially true for technology like an RDBMS, for 
which the free part may just be the client.

Finally, I would offer that sometimes it *is* a labor of love for that 
person, even if they are doing the work "on the clock".  There are 
open-source advocates at all of the RDBMS companies.  Sometimes 
everything works out for the best, when the management understands that 
contributing to an open-source project benefits their commercial goals 
as well as benefiting the community, and they have someone on staff who 
is enthusiastic to work on that project.

Regards,
Bill Karwin