On 2 January 2015 at 12:37, Scott Kitterman <ubu...@kitterman.com> wrote: > On Monday, December 29, 2014 01:09:57 PM Stephen M. Webb wrote: >> Fact is, when it comes time for me to accept or reject a contribution, I >> must outright reject any from an author who has not proven good will, and >> that proof is the CLA. > > Fact is you're required to do so by your employer, so no judgment at all on > your part is required. Your thesis would make sense if it required a > reciprocal grant of rights. It doesn't. It demands more from the contributor > in terms of rights than it granted (I'd find the paperwork annoying, but > reasonable if that were not the case). > > Fact is prior to the CLA, the type of abuses you're worried about didn't > happen in the project. In fact, Canonical threw away perfectly good code > because some people didn't want to retroactively agree to the original > copyright assignment. > > Fact is it's causing external groups to stay away from contributing to > Canonical projects (which contributes to the tautology that the CLA is > reasonable because Canonical is the primary/sole contributor). If you want a > specific example, the CLA is the only reason SDDM is the KDM replacement in > Plasma 5 and not LightDM. > > Canonical is free to set the rules for contributions to its projects however > it wants, but I think you misunderstand why there is a CLA. For Ubuntu (the > Linux distribution) there's no CLA and it works fine. >
A number of high-profile employees have left Canonical because of CLA. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
