On 2013-08-07 6:03 AM, Tom Farrow wrote:
Currently in IT we're working on a contributor agreement similar to the
Committer's Agreement but instead for IT contributors.
One of my fellow contributors often asks me "Why can't we just have one
agreement?" which in theory, makes sense
In practice, this can present a significant barrier to participation,
particularly by people who:
- need to have contracts like this reviewed by their companies' legal
departments.
- are unable to sign contracts due to their own legal status
- don't have easy access to a way to transmit a contract
- wish to remain anonymous
Further, while I'm not sure, I'm quite confident that it is impossible
to create an agreement that is all of:
- comprehensive,
- simple,
- globally localized, and
- meaningfully enforceable in all, or even most, of those jurisdictions
Things like AUPs and other IT-access agreements are generally
descriptions of a particular threat model (bad acts by a trusted agent,
exposure to liability, etc), offering their own threat model in return
(dismissal, legal action, etc).
In this case I don't understand either side of that equation. What are
we being protected from with this proposal, and by what mechanism can we
enforce our own position?
- mhoye
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
