[Live-demo] Fwd: Re: [Incubator] requiring CLA signing

Johan Van de Wauw johan.vandewauw at gmail.com
Sun Aug 28 13:47:08 PDT 2016

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic at xs4all.nl>

> ...
> By submitting a PR or sending patches to the mailinglist, the license is
> implicitly the same as the project. Unless code from another project (with
> a different license) is used, not specific extra steps should be required.
> If code from another project with a different but compatible license is
> submitted, that fact should be documented in the submission.
> ...
> Can you explain why developers should explicitly confirm they agree with
> the OSGeo-Live licenses before getting they contributions accepted?

Hello Bas,

Until 2011 (around june if you would like to check back in the mail
archives) we did not have a clear license. At that time we decided which
licenses we wanted for the project overviews, the quickstarts and the

We required everyone to agree on those licenses, by mailing to the list.
This was clearly needed as there was no prior license.

We continued requiring this for new contributors. You probably slipped
through the mazes of the net as you got involved by updating packages first.

Anyway to the point: I do see some value in explicitly asking whether
people are aware of the license, especially for larger contributions (such
as a new quickstart- often based on existing other sources). But I'm not
sure a blanket CLA is useful for that, perhaps it is better to check it
when such larger changes are merged (eg new files should contain an
appropriate license).

Kind Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeolive/attachments/20160828/6e18217a/attachment.html>

More information about the Osgeolive mailing list