On Feb 4, 2013 6:53 PM, "Ben Caradoc-Davies"
wrote:
>
> I was going to ask Frank for more detail, but reading his original email,
it is all there:
>
http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/Contribution-Agreement-Clarity-td5022284.html
>
> My understanding of this is that Google does not want to make
I would prefer not to mess with it if we don't have to (part of our motivation
in looking at this is to provide something that is clear cut so legal
departments do not need to think).
If I word that more strongly we would need to talk to a legal rep at free
software foundation to find you a b
That is interesting, Jody. I am not opposed to formalising the role of
representatives, just observing that we have not done so thus far. It
might well be a good idea.
Perhaps we can broaden the language to "representative" (but this has
legal connotations), or even just "person", together with
Thanks Ben, for reference I have been going through the eclipse stuff and …
a) It also demands employers sign for each representative they have in the mix
b) It is very clear (when you sign up) that you can reference an employer, or
the organisations you are doing the work for as a contractor
I added these in a new discussion section.
On 04/02/13 19:03, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Can you make a note of these two questions on the proposal page.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies
Software Engineer
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre
---
On 05/02/13 00:01, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> I am sure this has been covered but the proposal states that the current
> agreement is unsuitable for use but doesn't state why.
I was going to ask Frank for more detail, but reading his original
email, it is all there:
http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabbl
That is just it Justin, we do not know (and are not going to get any further
detail). My assumption is that our agreement would require thought/review as it
is not on a whitelist of approved documents.
--
Jody Garnett
On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 3:01 AM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> For ign
I am sure this has been covered but the proposal states that the current
agreement is unsuitable for use but doesn't state why. For ignorant folks
like me who haven't been following the developments on this one it would be
nice to have a few bullet points as to what the issues are.
On Mon, Feb 4,
On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 9:16 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> What is the impact on existing contributors? Will we need to submit new
> agreements?
>
>
I made some notes / assumptions in the proposal (check the tasks section).
> This new agreement also appears to introduce a maintenance o
What is the impact on existing contributors? Will we need to submit new
agreements?
This new agreement also appears to introduce a maintenance overhead in
that corporate entities seem to have to designate authorised employees
who are able to contribute. In my organisation, the exercise of this
10 matches
Mail list logo
