Hi,
just wanted to confirm a bit of knowledge about the contributor agreements.
Back in GeoTools there is an understanding that anyone contributing a new file needs to sign a
contributor agreement, right? (btw, was there ever a PMC vote on that?)
In GeoServer land I don’t believe we have any such policy, right? (the agreement is also harder
to send over, and not in line with the apache based one that we have in GeoTools).
Cheers
Andrea
–
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
My memory is hazy, but I think we decided if they become a real committer they need to sign the contributors agreement. If it’s just a community module, or some patches, then they don’t. I believe the thinking was that if we ever had trouble we could pretty easily remove and redo small contributions.
What do you mean the agreement is ‘harder to send over’? I’m happy if we can make that easier, and also if we get the agreement in line with the GeoTools one.
I think right now people send the agreements in to OpenPlans. With Boundless cleaving off I think we might start to consider an alternate foundation. I’m still advising OpenPlans informally, and I think continue to be fine with holding the copyright, but it is less and less in line with what they’re doing, so I think they’d also be fine to not have to deal with the hassle. But we’d need a good, legitimate alternative, and one that will have someone to deal with contributor agreements and helping keep the IP clean.
···
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Andrea Aime <andrea.aime@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to confirm a bit of knowledge about the contributor agreements.
Back in GeoTools there is an understanding that anyone contributing a new file needs to sign a
contributor agreement, right? (btw, was there ever a PMC vote on that?)
In GeoServer land I don’t believe we have any such policy, right? (the agreement is also harder
to send over, and not in line with the apache based one that we have in GeoTools).
Cheers
Andrea
–
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.comsts.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Chris Holmes <chomie@anonymised.com> wrote:
My memory is hazy, but I think we decided if they become a real committer
they need to sign the contributors agreement. If it's just a community
module, or some patches, then they don't. I believe the thinking was that
if we ever had trouble we could pretty easily remove and redo small
contributions.
Ah, sorry, I forgot the context: pull requests.
What do you mean the agreement is 'harder to send over'? I'm happy if we
can make that easier, and also if we get the agreement in line with the
GeoTools one.
Doesn't it need to be sent over by snail mail or fax?
The GeoTools one is apparently good by mail.
I think right now people send the agreements in to OpenPlans. With
Boundless cleaving off I think we might start to consider an alternate
foundation. I'm still advising OpenPlans informally, and I think continue
to be fine with holding the copyright, but it is less and less in line with
what they're doing, so I think they'd also be fine to not have to deal with
the hassle. But we'd need a good, legitimate alternative, and one that will
have someone to deal with contributor agreements and helping keep the IP
clean.
Right
Cheers
Andrea
--
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
-------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Andrea Aime <andrea.aime@anonymised.com>wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Chris Holmes <chomie@anonymised.com> wrote:
My memory is hazy, but I think we decided if they become a real committer
they need to sign the contributors agreement. If it's just a community
module, or some patches, then they don't. I believe the thinking was that
if we ever had trouble we could pretty easily remove and redo small
contributions.
Ah, sorry, I forgot the context: pull requests.
Ah. Yeah, would be nice to do something a bit better there. One thing we
should do is a CONTRIBUTING file in the root folder, see
https://github.com/blog/1184-contributing-guidelines
It puts a nice message up whenever you do a PR or open an issue.
What do you mean the agreement is 'harder to send over'? I'm happy if we
can make that easier, and also if we get the agreement in line with the
GeoTools one.
Doesn't it need to be sent over by snail mail or fax?
The GeoTools one is apparently good by mail.
I take it you mean email here? Looking online it looks like python also
accepts email scans/pictures. And elastic search uses some esign thing:
http://www.elasticsearch.org/contributor-agreement/ Eclipse looks like it
has some form that people fill out online. I guess we should maybe check
with a lawyer, but I'd be for not requiring snail mail. Would also make
things easier on OpenPlans.
I think right now people send the agreements in to OpenPlans. With
Boundless cleaving off I think we might start to consider an alternate
foundation. I'm still advising OpenPlans informally, and I think continue
to be fine with holding the copyright, but it is less and less in line with
what they're doing, so I think they'd also be fine to not have to deal with
the hassle. But we'd need a good, legitimate alternative, and one that will
have someone to deal with contributor agreements and helping keep the IP
clean.
Right
Cheers
Andrea
--
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
-------------------------------------------------------