16 Oct
2014
16 Oct
'14
5:16 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
All,
After much consideration I have decided it would be safest to require our
developers to formalize their open-source contributions with a CLA.
The CLA on the main TDE site does not transfer copyright or do anything
objectionable like Canonical's old CLA did; it simply formalizes the
long-standing intuitive agreement between open-source contributors and
open-source projects. Specifically, contributors grant a license to use,
redistribute, modify, etc. the contributed work under our approved
open-source licenses (sadly this formalization is required even though
most people would think contributing to an open source project
automatically granted those rights!), waive any patent rights they may
otherwise hold for the contribution (some people contribute then sue for
high damages), etc. Fairly standard stuff but in the increasingly
litigious environment of the United States the risks are just too high to
continue without a CLA.
I have not arrived at this decision lightly, but have tried to keep the
CLA as minimal as possible while protecting the project. I don't believe
the CLA grants any further rights to the project than already intuitively
granted when people contribute to an open source project; if I am in error
please let me know ASAP!
Until I get feedback from the core team this is not mandatory for anyone
who has already contributed to the project. Above all I do not want to
alienate the core development team without whom this project would not be
possible.
The agreements (and rationale) are available here:
https://www.trinitydesktop.org/cla/
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlQ//XAACgkQLaxZSoRZrGH4YQDeIfueuXHs5kOZWWs8cvkeQgPJ
jOJmkwmyVHMNPwDgtittrcLJjTacpbAEnRaCagrlBEZWSQkyzGLoSQ==
=ppdv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
16 Oct
16 Oct
6:46 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
On Thursday 16 of October 2014 19:16:32 Timothy Pearson wrote:
All,
After much consideration I have decided it would be safest to require our
developers to formalize their open-source contributions with a CLA.
The CLA on the main TDE site does not transfer copyright or do anything
objectionable like Canonical's old CLA did; it simply formalizes the
long-standing intuitive agreement between open-source contributors and
open-source projects. Specifically, contributors grant a license to use,
redistribute, modify, etc. the contributed work under our approved
open-source licenses (sadly this formalization is required even though
most people would think contributing to an open source project
automatically granted those rights!), waive any patent rights they may
otherwise hold for the contribution (some people contribute then sue for
high damages), etc. Fairly standard stuff but in the increasingly
litigious environment of the United States the risks are just too high to
continue without a CLA.
I have not arrived at this decision lightly, but have tried to keep the
CLA as minimal as possible while protecting the project. I don't believe
the CLA grants any further rights to the project than already intuitively
granted when people contribute to an open source project; if I am in error
please let me know ASAP!
Until I get feedback from the core team this is not mandatory for anyone
who has already contributed to the project. Above all I do not want to
alienate the core development team without whom this project would not be
possible.
The agreements (and rationale) are available here:
https://www.trinitydesktop.org/cla/
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
I have a question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed, and then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same time by François? If so, how
should it be implemented technically?
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors who do not have commit access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
--
Slávek
7:14 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
I have a question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed, and
then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as
Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Actually he needs to sign off on them. It gets a bit confusing because
there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
in: author, signed-off-by, and committer. In this case his name goes into
author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer. So when you
process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch in
Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
the commit message, separated by a blank line.
As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not to
sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
signed-off-by line.
For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
step by passing the -s flag to git commit. Just be aware that you are
stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit more
formal now.
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same time
by François? If so,
how
should it be implemented technically?
When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
patch in the bugtracker. If anyone outside of the core team submits a
patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they are
signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by line
to that comment.
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors who do
not have commit
access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
contain the signed-off-by line. It's always OK to reply to a patch
submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
Does this make sense? Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end of
the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and who
committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
issues.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRAGREACgkQLaxZSoRZrGFBEgDfVbLl09PAuheSDzvI85jwBiIF
W93ruhdaPTAAZADgkdaC7D/2ulD8EuwwNHHRDW8GnhJK8nDcHkcpqg==
=JKN/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:27 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
I need to be clearer about one thing: If an author has not provided a
signed-off-by line, do NOT add it for him under any circumstances.
Especially in the United States and the UK the author may or may not have
the legal right to license his or her work to anyone, so the signed-off-by
line should not always be populated with the author's information.
In the special case of open source patches from other projects, the person
that pulls the patch from that project and submits it to us should sign
off on it. In this case the patch handler is asserting, via the license
granted to him or her, that he or she has the right to relicense the patch
to us. If this is not possible then there must be no signed-off-by line
in the GIT commit message, and the patch needs to be reviewed by the core
development team to verify its origin and license compatibility before
committing.
Tim
I have a question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed, and
then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as
Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Actually he needs to sign off on them. It gets a bit confusing because
there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
in: author, signed-off-by, and committer. In this case his name goes into
author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer. So when you
process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch in
Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
the commit message, separated by a blank line.
As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not to
sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
signed-off-by line.
For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
step by passing the -s flag to git commit. Just be aware that you are
stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit more
formal now.
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same
time by François? If
so,
how
should it be implemented technically?
When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
patch in the bugtracker. If anyone outside of the core team submits a
patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they are
signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by line
to that comment.
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors
who do not have commit
access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
contain the signed-off-by line. It's always OK to reply to a patch
submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
Does this make sense? Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end of
the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and who
committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
issues.
Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRAHDQACgkQLaxZSoRZrGFVOQDgv8cR8izWnNCcdFmGGXU1vrHH
sLthyw5KkIHN1wDghwNLadNzqIf5U/IUMfz6gn8fBdGk3qGDPgdfcQ==
=uNaL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:38 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
On Thursday 16 of October 2014 21:14:26 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Yes, I assumed that I start using '-s' at commit. I just did not know what the
outcome will be using --author '...' together with '-s'.
At the same time, I also hesitated over the procedure of processing patches
that need to be corrected before commit. If I had to incorporate a patch in
its original form and as a subsequent commit make the necessary changes?
--
Slávek
I have a
question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed, and
then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as
Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Actually he needs to sign off on them. It gets a bit confusing because
there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
in: author, signed-off-by, and committer. In this case his name goes into
author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer. So when you
process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch in
Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
the commit message, separated by a blank line.
As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not to
sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
signed-off-by line.
For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
step by passing the -s flag to git commit. Just be aware that you are
stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit more
formal now.
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same
time by François? If
so, how
should it be implemented technically?
When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
patch in the bugtracker. If anyone outside of the core team submits a
patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they are
signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by line
to that comment.
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors
who do not have commit
access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
contain the signed-off-by line. It's always OK to reply to a patch
submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
Does this make sense? Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end of
the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and who
committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
issues.
Tim
7:42 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
On Thursday 16 of October 2014 21:14:26 Timothy
Pearson wrote:
Yes, I assumed that I start using '-s' at commit. I just did not know what
the
outcome will be using --author '...' together with '-s'.
I honestly don't know what the outcome of that would be. Probably best
would be to either test it to see what happens or just manually add the
appropriate signed-off-by line to the bottom of the commit message.
If you do test it let us know how GIT handles those simultaneous flags!
I have a
question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed,
and
then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as
Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Actually he needs to sign off on them. It gets a bit confusing because
there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
in: author, signed-off-by, and committer. In this case his name goes
into
author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer. So when
you
process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch
in
Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
the commit message, separated by a blank line.
As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not
to
sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
signed-off-by line.
For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
step by passing the -s flag to git commit. Just be aware that you are
stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit
more
formal now.
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same
time by François? If
so, how
should it be implemented technically?
When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
patch in the bugtracker. If anyone outside of the core team submits a
patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they
are
signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by
line
to that comment.
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors
who do not have commit
access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
contain the signed-off-by line. It's always OK to reply to a patch
submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
Does this make sense? Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end
of
the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and
who
committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
issues.
Tim
At the same time, I also hesitated over the procedure
of processing
patches
that need to be corrected before commit. If I had to incorporate a patch
in
its original form and as a subsequent commit make the necessary changes?
This StackOverflow answer handles this case well:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/14044024
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRAH68ACgkQLaxZSoRZrGGcfADeJQzeBJVO03ZRelowOukHCKZ/
yuK1PANYpB/wrADfZ43TCLP7K5NjpilMqo5OMFQpfcHs2H4fDAS72A==
=sbVZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:54 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
On Thursday 16 of October 2014 21:42:39 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Such was the command:
git commit --author "François Andriot <francois.andriot@....>" -s -m
"Test author × signoff"
And this is the result:
commit 24e312eaf69fbbdadea6d22f3e29a55951a133cb
Author: François Andriot <francois.andriot@....>
AuthorDate: Thu Oct 16 21:50:17 2014 +0200
Commit: Slávek Banko <slavek.banko@....>
CommitDate: Thu Oct 16 21:50:17 2014 +0200
Test author × signoff
Signed-off-by: Slávek Banko <slavek.banko@....>
Oh, yeah, that's good.
On Thursday 16
of October 2014 21:14:26 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Yes, I assumed that I start using '-s' at commit. I just did not know
what the
outcome will be using --author '...' together with '-s'.
I honestly don't know what the outcome of that would be. Probably best
would be to either test it to see what happens or just manually add the
appropriate signed-off-by line to the bottom of the commit message.
If you do test it let us know how GIT handles those simultaneous flags!
I have a
question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed,
and
then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as
Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Actually he needs to sign off on them. It gets a bit confusing because
there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
in: author, signed-off-by, and committer. In this case his name goes
into
author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer. So when
you
process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch
in
Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
the commit message, separated by a blank line.
As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not
to
sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
signed-off-by line.
For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
step by passing the -s flag to git commit. Just be aware that you are
stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit
more
formal now.
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same
time by François? If
so, how
should it be implemented technically?
When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
patch in the bugtracker. If anyone outside of the core team submits a
patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they
are
signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by
line
to that comment.
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors
who do not have commit
access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
contain the signed-off-by line. It's always OK to reply to a patch
submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
Does this make sense? Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end
of
the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and
who
committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
issues.
Tim At the same
time, I also hesitated over the procedure of processing
patches
that need to be corrected before commit. If I had to incorporate a patch
in
its original form and as a subsequent commit make the necessary changes?
This StackOverflow answer handles this case well:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/14044024
Tim
--
Slávek
17 Oct
17 Oct
8:51 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
Am Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2014 schrieb Timothy Pearson:
"How do you call it when a bus full of lawers goes over the cliffs?" "A
good beginning!"
What about just demanding form every contributor for his/her patches/bugreports to be
accepted the patches/report must comply to GPL v2/v3/BSD ... ? Place it in the bugtracker,
place it on the list, be done.
If somebody wants to sue you, he/she will do despite whaterver contract was signed -
especally in the "free" US. In the rest of the world that signed CLA will most
likely not be valid at all (in most cases it's sufficent to claim you have not
comprehended the text in its full extent, 'cause it's not written in your tongue)
Nik
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
I have a
question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed, and
then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as
Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Actually he needs to sign off on them. It gets a bit confusing because
there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
in: author, signed-off-by, and committer. In this case his name goes into
author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer. So when you
process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch in
Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
the commit message, separated by a blank line.
As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not to
sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
signed-off-by line.
For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
step by passing the -s flag to git commit. Just be aware that you are
stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit more
formal now.
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same
time by François? If so,
how
should it be implemented technically?
When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
patch in the bugtracker. If anyone outside of the core team submits a
patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they are
signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by line
to that comment.
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors
who do not have commit
access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
contain the signed-off-by line. It's always OK to reply to a patch
submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
Does this make sense? Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end of
the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and who
committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
issues.
Tim
4:18 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
Am Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2014 schrieb Timothy
Pearson:
"How do you call it when a bus full of lawers goes over the cliffs?" "A
good beginning!"
Heh. :-)
I have a
question:
I often process patches from François, making adjustments as needed,
and
then
commit. For such posts will be listed as an author François and as
Signed-off
will be mine. Is this the correct procedure?
Actually he needs to sign off on them. It gets a bit confusing because
there are actually three authorship fields in GIT that we are interested
in: author, signed-off-by, and committer. In this case his name goes
into
author and signed-off-by, and your name goes into committer. So when
you
process the patches, if he provided a signed-off-by line for that patch
in
Bugzilla then you copy that into the commit message on the last line of
the commit message, separated by a blank line.
As I am still phasing the CLA system in, and I trust the core team not
to
sue, include copyrighted code, etc., if he has not provided a
signed-off-by line for the patches go ahead and commit them without a
signed-off-by line.
For developers with GIT accounts you can commit and sign off all in one
step by passing the -s flag to git commit. Just be aware that you are
stating you have the legal right to license the commit when you do this;
philosophically this is the same as before but the procedure is a bit
more
formal now.
Or contributions should be Signed-off at the same
time by François? If
so,
how
should it be implemented technically?
When he submits patches he should provide a signed-off-by line for that
patch in the bugtracker. If anyone outside of the core team submits a
patch without a signed-off-by line for that patch in the bug report we
need to request that they provide one--the patch itself does not have to
be resubmitted, but the submitter needs to add a comment stating they
are
signing off on that patch and appending the appropriate signed-off-by
line
to that comment.
Similarly, in cases of occasional contributors
who do not have commit
access?
For example, during the integration of the translations.
Same as above; if patch is submitted via Email then the Email should
contain the signed-off-by line. It's always OK to reply to a patch
submission and request that a signed-off-by line be provided.
Does this make sense? Basically we're just fixing the bookkeeping end
of
the project so that we know who authored, who owns, who released, and
who
committed anything and can thereby better avoid any potential legal
issues.
Tim What about just demanding form every contributor for
his/her
patches/bugreports to be accepted the patches/report must comply to GPL
v2/v3/BSD ... ? Place it in the bugtracker, place it on the list, be done.
The problem (explained below) boils down to at least in the USA/UK (unsure
of elsewhere) a person may not actually have the legal rights to release
their work under the GPL. If the true rights holder comes after me, which
do you think will shorten the legal trouble: "I had a notice on the
website so I thought they read and followed it..." or "this person was in
breach of contract with me, here's the paperwork they read, signed, and
violated!". I vote for the latter, as does every major open source
project I know of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement
If somebody wants to sue you, he/she will do despite
whaterver contract
was signed - especally in the "free" US. In the rest of the world that
signed CLA will most likely not be valid at all (in most cases it's
sufficent to claim you have not comprehended the text in its full extent,
'cause it's not written in your tongue)
While I understand fully what you are saying, in all honesty I am not
concerned about problems from contributors outside of the USA/UK. I think
most of the free world understands what contributing to open source means;
it's just our two countries (and maybe one or two others, not sure) where
people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
This whole CLA thing kicked off many months ago because I have someone who
lives in the USA and works for a USA-based engineering firm; basically in
this situation the person's employer de facto owns all works created by
the employee even in their off time unless the company explicitly releases
those rights. Previously we had no mechanism by which the employee could
ask the company to do that, and therefore no way for that person to ever
contribute to TDE; now we have a mechanism in place.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRBQTQACgkQLaxZSoRZrGEBLADdGe1bt4yj5zoZ+D6nGpNdsGGw
cxzDqVVf26oubwDZAeHE4bmIkFwuFCKOGVyqgoqhoroxbNnfz2K0Dw==
=nggS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:01 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
Am Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 schrieb Timothy Pearson:
While I understand fully what you are saying, in all
honesty I am not
concerned about problems from contributors outside of the USA/UK. I think
most of the free world understands what contributing to open source means;
it's just our two countries (and maybe one or two others, not sure) where
people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
This whole CLA thing kicked off many months ago because I have someone who
lives in the USA and works for a USA-based engineering firm; basically in
this situation the person's employer de facto owns all works created by
the employee even in their off time unless the company explicitly releases
those rights. Previously we had no mechanism by which the employee could
ask the company to do that, and therefore no way for that person to ever
contribute to TDE; now we have a mechanism in place.
Tim
I'd call this kind of contract slavery.
Anyway, I'd go for a shorter license agreement. Something in the kind of "I, the
contributor, own all rights of my contribution. I hold the project harmless against any
third-party claims" (don't know if that's the correct term, in german
it's "schad und klaglos halten").
As far as my experience with lawyers goes, these kind of folk hate simple terms. Judges on
the other hand love simple terms.
Nik
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
8:01 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
Am Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 schrieb Timothy Pearson:
As would I, however it's the norm rather than the exception over here. I
wish we would start adopting some of your laws on work and privacy, but
that is never going to happen; this country outsourced most of its
technology manufacturing long ago and seems to have put a death grip on
its (rapidly fading) intellectual property as a result.
While I understand fully what you are saying, in
all honesty I am not
concerned about problems from contributors outside of the USA/UK. I
think
most of the free world understands what contributing to open source
means;
it's just our two countries (and maybe one or two others, not sure)
where
people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
This whole CLA thing kicked off many months ago because I have someone
who
lives in the USA and works for a USA-based engineering firm; basically
in
this situation the person's employer de facto owns all works created by
the employee even in their off time unless the company explicitly
releases
those rights. Previously we had no mechanism by which the employee
could
ask the company to do that, and therefore no way for that person to ever
contribute to TDE; now we have a mechanism in place.
Tim
I'd call this kind of contract slavery. Anyway, I'd go for a shorter license agreement.
Something in the kind of
"I, the contributor, own all rights of my contribution. I hold the project
harmless against any third-party claims" (don't know if that's the correct
term, in german it's "schad und klaglos halten").
- From what I understand under our laws that wouldn't be sufficient. The
legal rights holder would win with no recourse on my part even if the
original author signed that.
My kindergarten-level German is a bit strained here (not sure exactly what
"klaglos" means in this context) but I think it translates most closely as
"waive all rights and damages"?
As far as my experience with lawyers goes, these kind
of folk hate simple
terms. Judges on the other hand love simple terms.
I tried to pick the least-complicated CLA I could find that would still
hold up under USA/UK law. If David Rankin is around perhaps he could shed
some light on whether I am being too careful or not careful enough?
Thanks for your input!
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFUEARELAAYFAlRBdZoACgkQLaxZSoRZrGGpmQDYvwL9TYfQNXBPg7ZDpeHIL6ts
l/0LOCWnQZCKANsGcThTC6eiDPzBhCg+EKj8sGNxA+63fGTx+Uec
=uyB/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:46 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
Am Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 schrieb Timothy Pearson:
My kindergarten-level German is a bit strained here
(not sure exactly what
"klaglos" means in this context) but I think it translates most closely as
"waive all rights and damages"?
Not exactly. It means if you get sued by C 'cause B's contribution violates
C's "rights", then B has to take the call, not you, and in case any damage
from the action of B comes to you, B has to stand for it.
Nik
--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
8:53 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
Am Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 schrieb Timothy Pearson:
OK, thanks for the explaination. I'm still trying to learn German, but
obviously have a long way to go. :-)
We do not have that concept in US law. I wish we did, it would make
things so much simpler (we have even had Google and YouTube sued for
linking to users' content)!
Tim
My kindergarten-level German is a bit strained
here (not sure exactly
what
"klaglos" means in this context) but I think it translates most closely
as
"waive all rights and damages"?
Not exactly. It means if you get sued by C 'cause B's contribution
violates C's "rights", then B has to take the call, not you, and in case
any damage from the action of B comes to you, B has to stand for it.
Nik -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRBgbUACgkQLaxZSoRZrGHHFgDgvOrGOdUyTVkHjgcv7MaKN6gA
EgOojjm3uZ/YTwDdGGDxSZ9lntybiRVVfQWJ2Iz3iv4eDB2rWJ4blg==
=47ye
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:53 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
On Thursday 16 of October 2014 19:16:32 Timothy Pearson wrote:
All,
After much consideration I have decided it would be safest to require our
developers to formalize their open-source contributions with a CLA.
The CLA on the main TDE site does not transfer copyright or do anything
objectionable like Canonical's old CLA did; it simply formalizes the
long-standing intuitive agreement between open-source contributors and
open-source projects. Specifically, contributors grant a license to use,
redistribute, modify, etc. the contributed work under our approved
open-source licenses (sadly this formalization is required even though
most people would think contributing to an open source project
automatically granted those rights!), waive any patent rights they may
otherwise hold for the contribution (some people contribute then sue for
high damages), etc. Fairly standard stuff but in the increasingly
litigious environment of the United States the risks are just too high to
continue without a CLA.
I have not arrived at this decision lightly, but have tried to keep the
CLA as minimal as possible while protecting the project. I don't believe
the CLA grants any further rights to the project than already intuitively
granted when people contribute to an open source project; if I am in error
please let me know ASAP!
Until I get feedback from the core team this is not mandatory for anyone
who has already contributed to the project. Above all I do not want to
alienate the core development team without whom this project would not be
possible.
The agreements (and rationale) are available here:
https://www.trinitydesktop.org/cla/
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
Some technical questions:
1) It would be useful to either pre-fill 'Us' or add instructions how it
should be filled.
2) Remember that the contributors can be from all over the world, and it would
be good to specify the fax number including international callsign -
ie: +1 (415) 639-6630.
3) If sending by email procedure should be what? Print, fill in
informations 'You', be signed, scanned and sent as images?
It would be good instructions also add to the web page.
--
Slávek
4:17 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
<snip>
Some technical questions:
1) It would be useful to either pre-fill 'Us' or add instructions how it
should be filled.
2) Remember that the contributors can be from all over the world, and it would
be good to specify the fax number including international callsign -
ie: +1 (415) 639-6630.
3) If sending by email procedure should be what? Print, fill in
informations 'You', be signed, scanned and sent as images?
It would be good instructions also add to the web page.
Slavek raised some good points.
I went through the individual CLA and my understanding is that it should
be signed by both the Contributor and by "Us". Am I right? How is the
Contributor getting a copy from "Us" after the signature? It would be
good to add some information as well.
As a general observation, I have no problem with a CLA (as long as my
employer approves that) and I do understand why you want to introduce
them, but I think it may scare away potentially new contributors in case
they come along, especially people from outside the US. The contents of
the CLA is "nothing new", but being a legally binding document, some
people may just think "What the hell? I will join another open project".
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers
Michele
6:25 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
<snip>
This should now be clearer; as mentioned in my prior message I have now
signed the documents and the GPG signatures can be downloaded from the CLA
page.
Some technical questions:
1) It would be useful to either pre-fill 'Us' or add instructions how it
should be filled.
2) Remember that the contributors can be from all over the world, and it
would
be good to specify the fax number including international callsign -
ie: +1 (415) 639-6630.
3) If sending by email procedure should be what? Print, fill in
informations 'You', be signed, scanned and sent as images?
It would be good instructions also add to the web page.
Slavek raised some good points.
I went through the individual CLA and my understanding is that it should
be signed by both the Contributor and by "Us". Am I right? How is the
Contributor getting a copy from "Us" after the signature? It would be
good to add some information as well. As a general observation, I have no problem with a CLA
(as long as my
employer approves that) and I do understand why you want to introduce
them, but I think it may scare away potentially new contributors in case
they come along, especially people from outside the US. The contents of
the CLA is "nothing new", but being a legally binding document, some
people may just think "What the hell? I will join another open project".
Yes, this was my concern too. However it seems that not having a CLA is
really leaving yourself open to project-killing lawsuits; even if you
"win" in the end you still lose the project and (in many cases) everything
you own. We aren't as civilized here as other countries; there are no
maximum penalties in copyright-related matters and one accusation brought
to court can ruin a life, even if proven baseless.
I looked around some and every major open source project including KDE
requires a CLA at this point. Seems it just comes with the territory; if
we scare a potential contributor with our CLA they will probably be scared
off of any other major project as well. I've tried to lay out the
rationale and mechanics of the CLA in plain English on the site; hopefully
this helps to mitigate the "scariness" factor.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRAtl4ACgkQLaxZSoRZrGEOrwDgvp8k0eWE/dUVJjHUcSZz+7S1
V4ekIHRro/eDKADfZRcipGI735+bo8oxUEW+NXx9LihuOKfGic0sRw==
=xPKN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:20 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
On Thursday 16 of October 2014 19:16:32 Timothy
Pearson wrote:
Good catch. I had wanted to use the PDFs generated on the Harmony site to
avoid any potential introduction of errors, but that doesn't appear to be
an option. I have *carefully* regenerated the PDFs from the Harmony
templates and prefilled the "Us" fields, as well as added editable fields
for the contributor section.
All,
After much consideration I have decided it would be safest to require
our
developers to formalize their open-source contributions with a CLA.
The CLA on the main TDE site does not transfer copyright or do anything
objectionable like Canonical's old CLA did; it simply formalizes the
long-standing intuitive agreement between open-source contributors and
open-source projects. Specifically, contributors grant a license to
use,
redistribute, modify, etc. the contributed work under our approved
open-source licenses (sadly this formalization is required even though
most people would think contributing to an open source project
automatically granted those rights!), waive any patent rights they may
otherwise hold for the contribution (some people contribute then sue for
high damages), etc. Fairly standard stuff but in the increasingly
litigious environment of the United States the risks are just too high
to
continue without a CLA.
I have not arrived at this decision lightly, but have tried to keep the
CLA as minimal as possible while protecting the project. I don't
believe
the CLA grants any further rights to the project than already
intuitively
granted when people contribute to an open source project; if I am in
error
please let me know ASAP!
Until I get feedback from the core team this is not mandatory for anyone
who has already contributed to the project. Above all I do not want to
alienate the core development team without whom this project would not
be
possible.
The agreements (and rationale) are available here:
https://www.trinitydesktop.org/cla/
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
Some technical questions:
1) It would be useful to either pre-fill 'Us' or add instructions how it
should be filled. 2) Remember that the contributors can be from all over
the world, and it
would
be good to specify the fax number including international callsign -
ie: +1 (415) 639-6630.
Whoops! I do business internationally and therefore religiously tack on
the "+1" prefix; not sure how I managed to leave it off that page.
3) If sending by email procedure should be what?
Print, fill in
informations 'You', be signed, scanned and sent as images?
It would be good instructions also add to the web page.
As there is now fillable field support I think it is a bit more obvious
what is intended? Either way is fine, though if it's signed on paper then
scanned there is no need for a digital signature and vice versa.
I have also generated GPG digital signatures for the two PDFs on the site;
these constitute my signing of the agreements the same way as if someone
else had sent in a digital signature for a CLA via Email.
I could use some help from David Rankin if he's on the list to make sure I
have done this all correctly, but at least this is a good start.
Thanks all for your input!
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRAtTkACgkQLaxZSoRZrGETjQDgw1VjLH0uY+syOlUP3O4IxvDq
7901y4U7Up09SgDeMo/bb393wDEBVW1mvUVWayvEo+QAu+VlnW2bsQ==
=rdgx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:16 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
On Friday 17 of October 2014 08:20:42 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Great, it looks good. Now I have yet to find a pdf viewer that support form
fields, because usually I have installed only kpdf :)
--
Slávek
On Thursday 16
of October 2014 19:16:32 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Good catch. I had wanted to use the PDFs generated on the Harmony site to
avoid any potential introduction of errors, but that doesn't appear to be
an option. I have *carefully* regenerated the PDFs from the Harmony
templates and prefilled the "Us" fields, as well as added editable fields
for the contributor section.
All,
After much consideration I have decided it would be safest to require
our
developers to formalize their open-source contributions with a CLA.
The CLA on the main TDE site does not transfer copyright or do anything
objectionable like Canonical's old CLA did; it simply formalizes the
long-standing intuitive agreement between open-source contributors and
open-source projects. Specifically, contributors grant a license to
use,
redistribute, modify, etc. the contributed work under our approved
open-source licenses (sadly this formalization is required even though
most people would think contributing to an open source project
automatically granted those rights!), waive any patent rights they may
otherwise hold for the contribution (some people contribute then sue for
high damages), etc. Fairly standard stuff but in the increasingly
litigious environment of the United States the risks are just too high
to
continue without a CLA.
I have not arrived at this decision lightly, but have tried to keep the
CLA as minimal as possible while protecting the project. I don't
believe
the CLA grants any further rights to the project than already
intuitively
granted when people contribute to an open source project; if I am in
error
please let me know ASAP!
Until I get feedback from the core team this is not mandatory for anyone
who has already contributed to the project. Above all I do not want to
alienate the core development team without whom this project would not
be
possible.
The agreements (and rationale) are available here:
https://www.trinitydesktop.org/cla/
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
Some technical questions:
1) It would be useful to either pre-fill 'Us' or add instructions how it
should be filled. 2) Remember that the contributors can be from all
over the world, and it
would
be good to specify the fax number including international callsign -
ie: +1 (415) 639-6630.
Whoops! I do business internationally and therefore religiously tack on
the "+1" prefix; not sure how I managed to leave it off that page.
3) If sending by email procedure should be what?
Print, fill in
informations 'You', be signed, scanned and sent as images?
It would be good instructions also add to the web page.
As there is now fillable field support I think it is a bit more obvious
what is intended? Either way is fine, though if it's signed on paper then
scanned there is no need for a digital signature and vice versa.
I have also generated GPG digital signatures for the two PDFs on the site;
these constitute my signing of the agreements the same way as if someone
else had sent in a digital signature for a CLA via Email.
I could use some help from David Rankin if he's on the list to make sure I
have done this all correctly, but at least this is a good start.
Thanks all for your input!
Tim
1 Nov
1 Nov
3:05 a.m.
New subject: Contributor License Agreements status
Just wondering: what is the status of CLAs? Have they been finalized?
Cheers
Michele
3:33 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements status
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
Just wondering: what is the status of CLAs? Have they
been finalized?
Cheers
Michele
Considering that the feedback we received was mostly neutral/positive, and
that we haven't received any additional feedback for quite some time I
think we can consider them finalized. I'll hold off for a couple days
just in case this message triggers further discussion.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRUVJ0ACgkQLaxZSoRZrGGeZgDfXs3KHhiLydcbsxCe4Yn1DUaT
r/YbiM/U0BwSpQDglmkzkmLAPja89OKCVUUdmEg8Ez2VCQIjLjEG0w==
=3gs8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:48 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements status
On Saturday 01 of November 2014 04:33:50 Timothy Pearson wrote:
I note that almost the same question I posted more than 10 days ago and there
was no further discussion. See:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::13977
--
Slávek
Just
wondering: what is the status of CLAs? Have they been finalized?
Cheers
Michele
Considering that the feedback we received was mostly neutral/positive, and
that we haven't received any additional feedback for quite some time I
think we can consider them finalized. I'll hold off for a couple days
just in case this message triggers further discussion.
Tim
9 Nov
9 Nov
10:45 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements status
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
On Saturday 01 of November 2014 04:33:50 Timothy
Pearson wrote:
I note that almost the same question I posted more than 10 days ago and
there
was no further discussion. See:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/?0::13977
--
Slávek
OK, I am going to consider the CLAs finalized at this time.
Current TDE developers: please sign and return a copy via the instructions
on the Web site (assuming of course you have the legal right to do so--if
you do not, please contact me directly).
Thanks!
Tim
Just
wondering: what is the status of CLAs? Have they been finalized?
Cheers
Michele
Considering that the feedback we received was mostly neutral/positive,
and
that we haven't received any additional feedback for quite some time I
think we can consider them finalized. I'll hold off for a couple days
just in case this message triggers further discussion.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iFYEARELAAYFAlRf7m0ACgkQLaxZSoRZrGH+XgDgqhG6pxYffh3lE9v35sB/xXfk
TdCVkTDNjo55xwDeNfVgJWtru3L8236mQqqZpxlGQPn8Uz0x25JO1w==
=fpt1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
20 Oct
20 Oct
9:43 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] Contributor License Agreements
On Thursday 16 of October 2014 19:16:32 Timothy Pearson wrote:
All,
After much consideration I have decided it would be safest to require our
developers to formalize their open-source contributions with a CLA.
The CLA on the main TDE site does not transfer copyright or do anything
objectionable like Canonical's old CLA did; it simply formalizes the
long-standing intuitive agreement between open-source contributors and
open-source projects. Specifically, contributors grant a license to use,
redistribute, modify, etc. the contributed work under our approved
open-source licenses (sadly this formalization is required even though
most people would think contributing to an open source project
automatically granted those rights!), waive any patent rights they may
otherwise hold for the contribution (some people contribute then sue for
high damages), etc. Fairly standard stuff but in the increasingly
litigious environment of the United States the risks are just too high to
continue without a CLA.
I have not arrived at this decision lightly, but have tried to keep the
CLA as minimal as possible while protecting the project. I don't believe
the CLA grants any further rights to the project than already intuitively
granted when people contribute to an open source project; if I am in error
please let me know ASAP!
Until I get feedback from the core team this is not mandatory for anyone
who has already contributed to the project. Above all I do not want to
alienate the core development team without whom this project would not be
possible.
The agreements (and rationale) are available here:
https://www.trinitydesktop.org/cla/
Thank you for your consideration,
Timothy Pearson
Trinity Desktop Project
Please, there are no further comments for CLA?
We therefore consider the current form for the final?
--
Slávek
3666
days inactive
3690
days old
22 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp -
Michele Calgaro -
Slávek Banko -
Timothy Pearson