[fdo-internals] MOTION: Acceptance of updated FDO ConributorAgrements

[Jason Birch]

+1 

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 14:34
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] MOTION: Acceptance of updated FDO
ConributorAgrements

Hi all,

Based on the feedback, I believe there is general acceptance for the
revised FDO contributor agreements. In that light I would like to motion
that the new agreements be formally adopted by the FDO PSC.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bray
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:07 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] FDO Conributor Agrements

Daniel,

It is my plan to sync the FDO and MapGuide agreements. These are the new
agreements that are (a) project specific and (b) include both a
corporate and individual versions. I just decided since FDO needed them
now I would vet them for review here and once they are adopted by FDO,
then I would motion to accept them in the MG PSC.

Bob

Daniel Morissette wrote:
> That legal bit is always confusing. I agree with Jason's concerns.
> Perhaps it would be safer to require both then?
>
> BTW, I forgot and wanted to check what MapGuide did. I only find an 
> individual CLA on the MapGuide site at 
> http://mapguide.osgeo.org/developer.html, so presumably all 
> contributors working for a company simply filled only the individual 
> version? But then clause 4 of MapGuide's individual CLA makes 
> references to the requirement for a coporate CLA which is not 
> available on the site. Seems that something is missing there. Bob?
>
> How about using the same approach for FDO that we used for MapGuide, 
> once the problem of the missing corporate CLA for MapGuide is fixed?
>
> Daniel
>
>
> Robert Bray wrote:
>> My general understanding is that this is the reason the Apache 
>> Foundation requires both.
>>
>> And yes I'll fix the dang logo...
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Jason Birch wrote:
>>> Absolutely not acceptable.  They're using an old version of the logo

>>> :)
>>>
>>> http://www.osgeo.org/logos
>>>
>>> Seriously, if individual contribution agreements are not required, I

>>> would want to see some mechanism where the project itself is 
>>> notified when one of the designated employees is no longer covered 
>>> under the CLA, so that their commit rights can be reviewed, 
>>> individual CLA obtained or commit rights revoked.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Greg Boone
>>> Subject: [fdo-internals] FDO Conributor Agrements
>>>
>>> The newly updated and *proposed* contributor agreements for the FDO 
>>> project have been posed for review and feedback.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fdo-internals mailing list
>>> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fdo-internals mailing list
>> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>
>
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals