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

[Robert Bray]

+1 Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Boone" <greg.boone at autodesk.com>
To: "FDO Internals Mail List" <fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:34 PM
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
>