Contributor agreement != copyright assignment [LWN.net]

Contributor agreement != copyright assignment

Posted Apr 13, 2011 14:42 UTC (Wed) by david.a.wheeler (guest, #72896)
Parent article: Randal: A Brief History of Harmony

There are actually *FOUR* draft agreements posted by Harmony. Two are just "contributor agreements" that seem to just assert that you're legally allowed to contribute but do NOT assign copyright. Two others DO assign copyright.

I agree that copyright assignment is dangerous, but some projects want them; I'd rather there be a standard form, if there must be one. And contributor agreements without copyright assignment are something a *LOT* of organizations want, and for those I *definitely* want some consensus.

(Log in to post comments)

Contributor agreement != copyright assignment

Posted Apr 13, 2011 14:58 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]

Maybe organizations want this, but I do not. Contributor agreements still require signing; I don't like that (Michael Meeks also explains that). Remember needing to sign something to get commit access at Mozilla (for Bugzilla). I wouldn't do so anymore. Especially when you discover it is actually better not to have Bugzilla commit access (in short: very strict on what is accepted; same for committers and random people). Needing to sign is just annoying and IMO (and seeing the presentation), you should avoid such barriers.

So no doubt the intention is good, but I still think it will have a bad effect (presention explains it much better than I can).

I like the GNOME environment: Git access = commit access to everything. Getting Git access is enough of a barrier.

I believe it is better to explain that it will create a big barrier than Project Harmony. In the end, it still requires signing, no matter if stuff is standarized or not.