On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:13:09 -0600 Tim Flink <tfl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Any thoughts on whether this is a good idea or a bad idea? Any changes > to the concept before I look for some specific verbiage and talk to > legal about it? After reading a bunch more stuff on CLAs in open source, project harmony and actually reading the generated CLA, I'm un-proposing the CLA idea. In terms of useful things for us, a CLA wouldn't do much, it adds a lot of complexity and is rather anti-community. I can't justify jumping through all those hoops for little benefit outside of warm legal-fuzzies that may not even exist. That being said, the kernel-style DCO [1] might be worth considering. Nothing fancy, just documentation that lists the DCO and says that by contributing code, you agree to its terms. I'm not sure we need to deal with signing off on code since we don't have a complicated merge process, though. This is almost no barrier to entry and reduces the possibility for folks to be confused about which license they're contributing under. Overall, I figure it covers most of the use cases we're interested in (other than possibly reverting back to an older license, which isn't a big deal) without causing un-needed problems. Thoughts? Tim [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.commits.head/33254 [2] http://developercertificate.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel
