On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, David Lamparter wrote:
There is no consensus (neither on -dev nor on maintainers@) on the
procedural approach and licensing handling this patch tries to describe.
Which bits do you object to exactly?
Surely not all of it?
Oh, the aims of it were:
- Add a "REQUIRED READING" section up-front, to summarise the absolute
"musts" and other important information contributors need to know.
At the moment such info is inter-mingled with less important stuff and
rationale throughout the doc, so such a section seems a good idea.
- Make it clear contributors are responsible for documenting all legal
claims, and technical dependencies introduced, beyond the implicitly
obvious. This seems generally sensible.
- Make it clear what the licensing requirements are for contributors,
from what is (in my view) already implicit from the various copyright
notices in Quagga.
I suspect you only have an issue with one of those things (least, that I'm
aware of)?
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Don't tell any big lies today. Small ones can be just as effective.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
