Quoting Greg KH (2013-03-11 22:19:55) > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined, > > which includes a mandatory requirement to sign a contributor license > > agreement and an option to also sign an assignment-like document based > > on the FSFe FLA, please speak up this week. > > I've already said this before, but I guess I need to say it again: > > If a contributor license is required to be signed, I'll have to > stop contributing to Gentoo. > > Other developers will be also affected, and you will find it hard to > attract new developers who happen to work for companies that forbid > their employees to sign these types of things (a _very_ common thing in > the US, I have yet to work for a company in the past 20+ years that > would have allowed this without going through the company's legal > council for approval, a usually very difficult thing to achieve for a > single developer.)
I am wondering if even things like Fedora Project Contributor Agreement[1] would cause trouble for you and people in similar situation. I.e. FPCA is not a copyright agreement as such, it's just setting default license for project for contributions without license and provides a set of licenses that are OK for project. In Fedora's case MIT was chosen as default for code and CC-BY-SA-3.0 for content. I am also assuming FPCA-style agreement wouldn't really solve whatever issues are to be solved with optional assignment policy but who knows... I myself do not care much for copyright assignment policies even though I have no legal problem with it per se. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement -- Stanislav Ochotnicky PGP: 7B087241 jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: signature
