2009/12/9 Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org>: > On 12/09/2009 03:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
... >> I realise that the alternative view of "code is contributed under >> license XYZ and XYZ has such a disclaimer" is arguably sufficient. > > Indeed. If you think CLA for contribution is a good idea, then why not ask > any user of the software also sign a CLA? I think a CLA for contributions that pose a high level of risk are a good idea. I have never stated they are required for all contributions. There is no need to require users to sign CLAs because they have to agree to the terms of the licence to use it this is explicit (although in some jurisdictions this is questionable, but that is off topic). There is no equivalent explicit agreement between contributors and the project unless a CLA is in place. > If no-CLA has worked for Mozilla, GNOME, KDE, and Linux, I wouldn't bother > for any other project of mine. Mozilla has a CLA [1], Linux has a CLA [2[, I don't know about KDE Please let me say again (you snipped it from my reply): "Just in case my message is getting lost in the detail, I'm not insisting that all contributions must carry a CLA. I'm merely saying we need to understand the risks, all the risks, so that we can evaluate them on a case by case basis." In other words I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. it is a different opinion from others, but that does not mean it is wrong. However, understanding why there are differences should be valuable in a group called "Teaching Open Source". Ross [1] (http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/committers-agreement.pdf [2] http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/book/54-patch-formatting -- Ross Gardler OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
