On 2010-11-02 8:12 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your > specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her > mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out > to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against > the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all > practical matters.
Simple (for the submitter) is best... Just define the process for code submissions and make the agreement a part of that process - a checkbox, that must explicitly be checked, with clear and unequivocal language of what the submitter is agreeing to, is all that should be necessary. This could be a one-time thing for those with direct commit access and those who create an account with a web based submission system, and something that the user must agree to each and every time for submissions done by email - ie, they submit a patch, the system holds it, sends an email back to the submitter, with a link they must click, which takes them to a page where they must signify their agreement to the copyright assignment, after which - and only after which - their submission will be accepted. It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be backed up religiously... ;) -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
