> Grant wrote: > What I don't understand is the claim that the requirement for a signed agreement precludes contributions from individuals.
There are a few ways to look at this. First, a contribution is typically something concrete (like code), and we're not even talking about that at this point. You can certainly join the mailinglist (once it's set up) and contribute feedback, requests, and ideas. I seriously doubt that requires a CLA, though I will need to check. When it comes to a concrete contribution, such as perhaps a section of the spec document, then yes, a CLA is needed. The reason is, that work needs to be protected. The CLA, in this case, is as much for your protection as it is for the collective work. We need to come out of this process with a document that has a clean legal history. Otherwise, it can threaten the totality of the work, and we could lose control of our own specification / invention. The Eclipse Foundation knows what they are doing and can provide those services that we'd otherwise not be able to handle (at least, not without hiring our own legal counsel). Before I close this reply, I want to mention that I don't have all the answers about running a spec. I'm very much in the process of learning. So while I'm giving you the information as I understand it, IANAL and I defer to an expert as to why this or that is necessary. And that gets to why I believe we need a proper home for the spec and not just wing it. There are a lot of things to consider when making a spec and the Eclipse Foundation has a full-time team to define, write, and maintain a specification process. We could waste tons of time trying to reinvent all that ourselves, or we can build on their framework and be able to focus on the spec we are trying to create. The latter seems like the much smarter route to take. Best, -Dan On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:47 PM Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2019-10-29, Lex Trotman <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> but you need to sign a legal agreement to contribute, goodbye all > >>> non-corporate contributors. > >> > >> Individuals can't sign a legal agreement? Or the Eclipse > >> Foundation just won't accept contributuions from individuals? > > > > Normally Eclipse won't accept contributions from any entity which > > has not signed the document be they corporate or individual, a > > perfectly understandable stance given they usually wrangle competing > > corporate entities. > > That I understand. They're not the only open-source organisation like > that, and I've signed such agreements in the past. What I don't > understand is the claim that the requirement for a signed agreement > precludes contributions from individuals. > > -- > Grant > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "asciidoc" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asciidoc/qpamji%2464qj%241%40blaine.gmane.org > . > -- Dan Allen | @mojavelinux | https://twitter.com/mojavelinux -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asciidoc/CAKeHnO6Ft28BJZU7NGXyRibBy2tOxivm%3Dbx_4skVfFPno8fkyA%40mail.gmail.com.
