foundation VS toc

A mature open source project may be governed under an open source foundation which usually gives it a charter https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/charter.md#3-va...

... and/or set of values: https://kubernetes.io/community/values/

There's also a lot of open source guides here https://todogroup.org/resources/guides/ that may help you if you're looking at building mature open source projects.

The CNCF has made exceptions on their license policy before, specifically for MPL based software. It'll probably be easier for OpenTF to go through that process than to relicense (which is likely not even possible for anyone other than Hashicorp).

- https://github.com/cncf/foundation/tree/main/license-excepti...

- https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/main/license-excepti...

Your comment or post were removed for violating the CNCF Code of Conduct. Please take a moment to review that here: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md

His behavior offends me as a professional software engineer and/ in my opinion, violates CNCF Code of Conduct https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md.

Anyone can become a member. Non-profit as in https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/charter.md

Read more about role of the CNCF, their projects and Values here.

https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/allowed-third...

I haven't read the details, or ever seen this policy before (I'm new to both projects) but it was summarized by one of our counterparts at the Linux Foundation here:

https://twitter.com/cra/status/1384859663615864833

Tl;dr: licenses must be approved for use, and the CNCF has this list of allowed licenses, AGPL is not on it. The CNCF is in the business of distributing permissively-licensed software is the short version I guess. I don't understand, I don't work on the legal side, I am a dev and I support end users.

It seems if your Apache 2.0 licensed project needs to modify and distribute as modified Grafana, which it seems likely we will need to do at some point, then you cannot distribute them together. Chris says they are going to work something out, but when a component has made a decision to re-license with a restrictive-copyleft license such as AGPL, I don't know what there is that can be done.

Maybe the CNCF adopts AGPL too, (which would mean that then all those "viral-GPL" FUD-spreaders will have been right...) that seems counter-productive if that is the outcome.

Your comment or post were removed for violating the CNCF Code of Conduct. Please take a moment to review that here: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md

Yup.. CNCF seems to not like this change: https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1262

CNCF Cloud Native Definition v1.0

This comes along with a public comment period, you can find the details here, and add your comments, support, remarks at this GitHub PR.

gRPC had a graduation application open for 3 years. It was rejected very recently: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/300.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like the main problem is Google's tight control over the project. Apple contributes to the Swift implementation and MSFT drives the native .NET implementation, but there's little non-Google input in decision-making for Go, Java, C++ core, or any of the implementations that wrap core.

More subjectively, I'm impressed by the CNCF's willingness to stick to their stated graduation criteria. gRPC is widely used (even among other CNCF projects), and comes from the company that organized the CNCF - there must have been a lot of pressure to rubber-stamp the application.

There is some movement: gRPC was recently denied graduation due to perceived problems with its governance.

CNCF Cloud Native Definition v1.0