On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 02:25:36PM +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > For everyone else: this involved developers being asked, and at > least verbally affirming, that they have written the patch > themselves and have the rights required to publish their work under > the relevant license. > > A CLA gets around this by having an explicit Contributor Licensing > Agreement where developers explicitly grant a license to some entity > (usually the project's sponsoring entity or a non-profit supporting > the project).
I don't consider it correct to see a CLA as "getting around" what the DCO does. The DCO (in typical form) and (typical) CLAs are doing different, though overlapping, things. > Both Mozilla and the Kernel, and several other projects, have > avoided a CLA for a number of reasons - if you're aiming for a > diverse developer base (as we are in oVirt) this can slow down > adoption and participation by 3rd parties. For that reason, I would > not encourage the adoption of a CLA for oVirt. Since at this point the only logical explicit inbound licensee entity for a (conventional) CLA would seem to be Red Hat, I would also note more strongly that Red Hat refuses to be the named inbound licensee for a CLA for oVirt. This issue was dealt with at the inception of oVirt. - RF _______________________________________________ Board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
