[mapguide-internals] CLA

[Tom Fukushima]

There wasn't any more discussion on this.  I would like to change how we do things and back Jason's suggestion that everyone sign a CLA in order to make any submission.

Does anyone disagree? If not I will make the change in 48 hours.

I will also add a link to this page so that we can quickly see who has signed the CLA: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Contributor_Agreements_Received.

Thanks
Tom

Here is Jason's original suggestion:
Hi all,

Our current "getting involved" document only talks about CLA
requirements for committers:

http://mapguide.osgeo.org/developer.html

I think that we should strip "and has a signed Contributor License
Agreement on file with OSGeo" from the "Project Developer" role and add
something like:

"Regardless of developer status, code will only be committed if a signed
Contributor License Agreement has been placed on file by the developer.
This is required to ensure that our code base remains encumbrance-free."

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 12:47 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] RE: CLA

I'm not sure how you would determine that either.  If the patch contains
substantial new work, it may be subject to copyright.  If it contains
unique methods, it may be subject to patent.

I guess could stick with the current system, but only apply substantial
patches if can obtain a CLA. Otherwise would have to abandon the patch
for new features or, for non-obvious bug fixes, recreate independently.


Basically, if someone submitted IP-encumbered code without being able to
sign the CLA, I think the patch should probably be deleted because we
don't have rights to it.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Fukushima
Sent: March-06-09 11:40 AM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: [mapguide-internals] RE: CLA

I thought that for small bug fixes, a CLA wasn't required, but for more
substantial fixes, we should ensure that a CLA exists.  Is this still
the case (actually, I'm not exactly sure how to decide when something is
substantial or not outside of just using my best judgment)?  If we are,
then the statement you propose seems a little severe; or maybe I'm just
reading it wrong.

On another note. What if someone submits a patch for a defect fix, but
then cannot sign the CLA for some reason; how do we get the patch in? 
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals