On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Pavel Shamis <pasharesea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless, I would have to notify legal teams about amendment of the
> existing CLA.
Sure, that's to be expected. I did the same (so did others).
> If organizations that already signed the agreement don't have any say, then
> this conversation is pointless.
No, it's not pointless. Ralph mentioned that non-Members don't have a vote,
but that doesn't mean that feedback is ignored. We posted here publicly
specifically to get feedback. So far, in core discussions there haven't arisen
any reasons to *not* move to a signed-off-by model (not a "signed commit"
model, which, as Chris B. mentioned, is ambiguous / can have multiple
meanings). Hence, we figured it was time to raise the issue to the larger
community and see if anyone else could think of a reason to not do this.
You mentioned that such a change will block contributions. Did you mean only
temporarily, while individual Contributor/Member organization legal departments
are reviewing the new terms? If so, that one-time "cost" may be acceptable,
since the goal of the new terms are designed to put us in a better place,
...or did you mean something else?
If it helps when discussing with your legal department: as mentioned on
https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws, the new
"signed-off-by commits mean that you agree to ..." model was co-opted from the
Linux kernel contribution model (as well as many other open source projects).
We didn't invent this, but are rather trying to a) be current with other
well-known open source project methodologies, and b) lower the bar for
For corporate legal information go to:
devel mailing list