On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 06:41:26PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 9:47 PM +0000 11/21/04, Tim Bunce wrote: > >What steps are being taken to ensure that patches/code donations to Parrot > >are free from potential intellectual property concerns? > > At the moment we're relying on the integrity of the people submitting > patches, with the assumption that people submitting understand the > policies and abide by them. TPF is working up Real Paperwork for > contributors so we can have everything official and as lawyer-proof > as we can manage.
I'm glad it's being worked on. It's rapidly becoming a major issue. Here's a comment I got from IBM about an early draft of the DBI roadmap: ---snip--- I can suggest one important addition to the "Roadmap": A structure for vetting contributions against IP/Legal entanglements. Without getting too specific, I can tell you this is a concern internally at IBM and that major focus is being placed on understanding and tracking the pedigree behind all third-party open-source software. At a minimum, it would be helpful to collect statements from all contributors to the effect that: a) Code written on employers time has been approved for contribution by the latter and contains no proprietary or encumbered aspects. b) All code is represented to be the original work of the person submitting it and that he/she has the right to contribute it. c) Perhaps other related factors known only to IP Lawyers <g>. I know that Linus has been forced by recent events to begin tracking some of these notions in the Linux kernel development process. To make any headway in the world where folks might be inclined to write a check, these issues cannot be ignored - particularly under the US Legal System. ---snip--- It's "boring but important" to get procedures in place before the backlog of unvetted contributions becomes too great. Tim.
