https://www.ohloh.net/p/hudson-ci/widgets

and has 128k lines of code. The contribution of KK is https://www.ohloh.net/p/hudson-ci/contributors/2099678514519776 and he contribute ca. 400k lines of code. So he write Hudson 4 times Oh this is very complicated

But Oracle said, they spend 1 million dollar and Hudson is 2.3 million worth => Oracle own 40% of Hudson?

@Ted, has Oracle from every Hudson contributor a signed CLA?
https://www.ohloh.net/p/hudson-ci/contributors

Christian

@Hamid This is exactly where the question of project governance comes in. As I discussed in my comment above, in a corporate open source project the ownership in the IP sense is usually not given to the community. That’s why everyone contributing to Hudson everyone had to sign a CLA, and in the process handed over their rights. Too often the community does not realize that, which is why I think this discussion is so important both for the future of Hudson/Jenkins and for the sanity of those contributing to open source projects. The community rightfully feels that it has ownership, but this ownership is not official unless it is expressed in a governance model.

For a technology this important to both developers and corporations, this story teaches us that a community-friendly governance model needs to provide ownership that goes beyond a single organization. This is very important to individual contributors who want to have a say in the future of a project. That say needs to be more than vocal complaints or opinions on a mailing list. It needs to be represented in the governance of the project. This is equally important for corporations wanting to contribute their best developers to improving open source projects that are important to them and their customers. If the ownership of the IP is not retained by the company contributing, and assurances of the cleanliness of the overall IP of the project are not met, companies instead choose to contribute to their own projects, and we lose the benefits of multi-vendor collaboration.

What I am proposing is that to move forward on the path to its potential, Hudson/Jenkins needs to provide a multi-vendor and community friendly governance model. Apache is close, but requires contributors to assign the IP to the foundation. Eclipse allows the contributors to retain the IP, and has both community contributors and multi-vendor collaboration as an explicit part of its governance model. For example, voting on committers and release reviews are an explicit and streamlined part of the Eclipse Development Process. There could be other options, but the reason that I have been positive on Eclipse as the place for this technology is that it has a proven track record of multi-vendor and the community friendly governance needed to keep such problems from arising as this technology continues its growth.

If that’s the case, why did Oracle register the trademark without consulting the other parties who have the collective ownership rights?

Oracle certainly didn’t act like it had some ownership, by registering the trademark without consulting the community, Oracle acted as if it claims 100% ownership over Hudson.
That didn’t sound like something a respected member of community would do, and certainly not a great example of community leadership.

In this eweek article http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Oracle-Donates-Hudson-Project-to-Eclipse-839790/
“Moreover, in a blog post about the move, Kersten said:
“The Hudson/Jenkins fork has generated FUD around this very popular Continuous Integration (CI) tool. Oracle has ownership of the Hudson IP that they acquired via Sun’s initial investment in the project. ”

I’ve been a hudson user since 2006. When Sun allowed Kohsuke to work full time on Hudson in 2008, all I saw was Sun becoming a member of the community, not the owner of the product or the community.
The product belonged to the community, not to Kohsuke alone, definitely not to Sun.

Could you please explain why Sun had ownership over Hudson?

I have written a more extensive comment on the thing at http://blog.hlyh.dk/2011/05/my-thought-on-eclipse-proposal.html (Not going to repeat the entire thing in a comment field)