The term signed patch can mean multiple things, but I'm strongly in favor of any non-trivial code still requiring a contributor agreement. I can give some examples of why long term it makes sense if needed.

Short version - you never know when you'll be forced into a license change and no project is immune from this.

The actual CLA which is used is another problem and professionals at SFLC may be willing to help pro bono. If interested I may be able to provide non-lawyer det‎ails since I've worked on this 1st hand multiple times.


From: George Bosilca
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 21:39
To: Open MPI Developers
Reply To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed patch.


On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis <> wrote:
Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen <> wrote:
We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the proposal (link below).
Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any comments or concerns.

devel mailing list

devel mailing list

devel mailing list

Reply via email to