On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > * What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor
> > agreement?
>
> Van's advise is as follows:
>
> There is no definite ruling on what constitutes "work" that is
> copyright-protected; estimates vary between 10 and
> * What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor
> agreement?
Van's advise is as follows:
There is no definite ruling on what constitutes "work" that is
copyright-protected; estimates vary between 10 and 50 lines.
Establishing a rule based on line limits is not supported by
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
--8<--
> > * Should we change the workflow for roundup to make this assignment
> > of license clearer (see Tobias's idea in the thread about a
> > click-though agreement).
>
> I think we do need something written; a lawyer ma
> * What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor
> agreement?
Unfortunately, that question was never fully answered (or I forgot
what the answer was).
> * Do Google employees, working on company time, automatically get
> treated as contributors with existing contr
Oops, didn't attach the entire thread, so see below:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Jim Baker wrote:
> A question that arose on this thread, which I'm forwarding for context (and
> we're quite happy about it too!):
>
>- What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor agreement?
>
A question that arose on this thread, which I'm forwarding for context (and
we're quite happy about it too!):
- What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor agreement?
This particular patch on #1188 simply adds obvious (in retrospect of course)
handling on SecurityException so
