[mapguide-internals] RE: CLA

Tom Fukushima tom.fukushima at autodesk.com
Fri Mar 6 14:40:25 EST 2009


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? 

-----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 10:15 AM
To: mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [mapguide-internals] CLA

Hi all,

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


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."


mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the mapguide-internals mailing list