On Wed, 21 May 2014 08:16:15 +1000 Dan Callaghan <dcall...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Just some food for thought... You might consider adopting a > "Developer Certificate of Origin" (with agreement indicated by a > Signed-off-by footer in git commit messages) like the Linux kernel, > rather than a CLA. A good summary here: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/592503/ I hadn't heard of that before, thanks for the link. > The wording of the Linux DCO doesn't give permission to re-license > but if new code is contributed under GPLv2+ it seems like that should > give you enough leeway to deal with the GPLv3-only stuff. From what I've been reading, DCO may not be so legally enforceable for similar reasons why CLAs can be a mess. They do have a good trail of who did what when to remove problematic code if something does come up, though. > It also has the advantage of avoiding the dread "CLA" phrase which in > many people's minds conjures up unpleasant images of copyright > assignment and proprietary re-licensing. Yeah, my statement about not trying to do anything sneaky was an attempt to acknowledge that. After reading a bunch of the stuff linked in the comments on that lwn article, I'm convinced that CLAs pretty much always have the potential for sneaky-ness and even if they don't, it's overhead and un-levels the playing field between the organization/group requiring CLAs and the contributors who sign them. Tim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
