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.
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 <pasharesea...@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel