* Scott Kitterman: > On February 14, 2020 3:46:18 PM UTC, Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> > wrote: >>Can a Debian Package Maintainer require CLA for accepting packaging >>changes and distro patches to be uploaded into Debian itself? >> >>(case in point, debian maintainer & upstream wear the same hat, and >>maintain upstream code & packaging on github.com, under a company org >>with a CLA bot, rejecting debian/* merge proposals until CLA is >>signed)
I don't see what's wrong with that. Just because there's a debian/ directory doesn't make it Debian. >>I didn't find things specifically about this in the policy and/or in >>the dfsg-faq and the three classic tests (desert island / dissident / >>tentacles of evil) do not fit the bill quite right. > Maintainers have substantial discretion regarding what contributions > they accept. "I don't want a patch that's not upstreamable" is not > uncommon. Mostly your question seems to be a variant of that > concern. I tend to agree, but we do not have archive-level mechanisms to enforce that and prevent NMUs. Depending on the nature of the CLA, requiring it would border on a DFSG violation. It would also make the package unmaintainable if the original packer loses interest, so the package would not be suitable for inclusion in a stable release. On the other hand, we have this in the request-tracker4 package: # CONTRIBUTION SUBMISSION POLICY: # # (The following paragraph is not intended to limit the rights granted # to you to modify and distribute this software under the terms of # the GNU General Public License and is only of importance to you if # you choose to contribute your changes and enhancements to the # community by submitting them to Best Practical Solutions, LLC.) # # By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or # derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with # Request Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that # you are the copyright holder for those contributions and you grant # Best Practical Solutions, LLC a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, # royalty-free, perpetual, license to use, copy, create derivative # works based on those contributions, and sublicense and distribute # those contributions and any derivatives thereof. I consider this an attempt at a CLA because of the asymmetric licensing grant, but it's probably too weak for most people who care about CLAs.
