On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 20:11:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >> >> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I don't >> >> have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has >> >> clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2. But a patch of >> >> 10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance? >> > >> > I wasn't mentioning doubted provenance. I'm talking about cases where >> > the author clearly states that he owns the copyright and contributes the >> > work under AL2. >> > >> >> If someone hands me a check for $10 and has an illegible signature on >> it, I might let that pass. But if someone gives me a check for $10000 >> I would probably insist on a legible signature. > > If the illegible signature is the one deposited with the bank, insisting > on a legible signature wouldn't help much, to the contrary, you might > not get your money. >
But if the illegible signature was not authorized, then I get no money, plus a fine from my bank when the check is returned as "not collectable". Not sure if it is the same in Germany... > >> >> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for >> >> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for >> >> ways to vote them in as Committers. If someone is making many >> >> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as >> >> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong. >> > >> > I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who does >> > not want to get involved too deeply with the project and does not want >> > to sign a CLA, yet is willing to contribute his work. >> >> You know that these are two different things, yes? > > Yes. > >> Someone can sign >> the iCLA but not become a committer and so not have any deeper >> commitment to participate in the project. >> >> Anyhow, if this did come up, I'd try to understand why the person was >> unwilling to sign the iCLA. Not as a debate or an argument, but to >> hear their concerns. We might be able to persuade them. But if not, >> then it is likely that we would need to decline the contribution. > > There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it philosophical > conception, due to history especially not if it's for OOo. If > contributions are welcome only under iCLA you probably won't see them > showing up here. > I sometimes wonder if we'd have greater acceptance of the iCLA if we called it something else, a name that did not include "CLA" in it? -Rob > Eike > > -- > PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. > Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD >
