Feedback from gt2 on contributors agreement.

[Rich Steele]

Chris Holmes wrote:

> One question just looks like a good one for the FAQ:
> Does this mean that before I can accept and commit a patch submitted
to
> me by a non-committer, they must submit a signed copy of the agreement
> to the foundation? Or would it fall under the copy of the agreement
that
> I will sign?

I've added a question/answer to the FAQ to address this.  It reads as
follows:

"What if I want to commit a patch or other code sent to me by someone
else? Do they have to sign a CLA too? 

It depends. All people with commit access to the code repository
("committers") should have a CLA on file. A small patch sent by a
non-committer that fixes a bug and only impacts a few lines of code can
be accepted without a CLA and added to the code repository by a
committer. However, more substantial additions of code, particularly
anything that adds new functionality, should not be committed without
first obtaining a CLA from the author. Whether a CLA is a requirement
involves some judgment by the committer, with guidance from the PSC as
appropriate. Code provenance and chain of title is important to protect
both you and the foundation, so in general one should err on the side of
obtaining a CLA where there is doubt."

> And the other is likely a bit more involved:
> 'Three words:
> Public domain contributions.
> 
> Failure to accept them excludes all interaction with the US Federal
> Government.'
> 
> Basically all federal employees _must_ release their work under public
> domain.  This is then obvioiusly able to be re-assigned, but if a
> contributor is working for the US government, then they can't release
> their work like directly to the foundation to be licensed under a more
> restrictive license.  In GeoTools I think we just let Bryce add a
public
> domain license.  But it'd be great if we could get the real legal
answer
> as to how to handle contributions from US gov employees.

There shouldn't be any problem with an individual who works for the US
federal government signing the contributor agreement with respect to
works of authorship that are the property of the *individual.*  Remember
that the CLA is signed by individuals.  Employers would sign the
Corporate CLA, where needed.  Certainly if the individual contributes
code that was developed in such individual's capacity as a federal
employee, it would be public domain under Section 105 of the US
Copyright Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000105----
000-.html
In that case, OSGeo wouldn't need a license to the code because it is
already public domain and can be used and relicensed without
restriction.  But if I am a federal employee and I write a book in my
spare time, I own the copyright to that book; it isn't public domain
just because I happen to work for the government.

The only potential issue I see is with Section 4 of the CLA, which
requires the individual to represent that if it is contributing any
employer-owned material, it has received permission to make such
contributions.  I think we can amend this section accordingly in the
case of any federal employees.  I wouldn't think there are very many, so
this can be handled on a case by case basis.

-Rich