On 19 August 2012 08:00, Jens Vagelpohl <j...@dataflake.org> wrote:

>
> On Aug 19, 2012, at 3:58 , Alex Clark <acl...@aclark.net> wrote:
>
> > IANAL but from my perspective the legitimate issue here is that Domen
> Ko┼żar has not signed the Zope Contributor's Agreement, but Jim has added
> him to the Buildout organization on GitHub and he has been committing
> fixes. If I were the ZF, I would either:
> >
> > - Make sure everyone in any ZF organizations on GitHub (e.g. buildout)
> has signed the contributor agreement, or
> > - Declare that nothing on GitHub (or at least in the buildout
> organization) is a valid contribution to "the work".
> >
> > In either case, AFAICT zc.buildout development has stopped on
> svn.zope.org and started on GitHub so let us let the commit stand to
> reflect this real world circumstance.
>
> Right now it can only be the second option. There's no "ZF organization"
> on GitHub. Legally, the zc.buildout fork now existing on GitHub is
> independent of the ZF, and the developers maintaining it are acting
> independent of the ZF. Don't get me wrong, they have every right to do so.
> But right now they cannot claim their software as being part of the Zope
> Foundation set of software. The same is true for all packages forked onto
> GitHub that were maintained on svn.zope.org before.
>

It may be useful for the sake of this thread to articulate why the people
who did fork it and move it to GitHub might benefit from the above.

Martin
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to