Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 20, 2013
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
I'm pretty sure this wasn't the case, as we didn't publicly mention this requirement anywhere.
in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays
Posted Apr 13, 2011 18:40 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Apr 13, 2011 20:08 UTC (Wed) by zooko (subscriber, #2589)
Which, I suppose, definitely proves one of the points against such contributor agreements. Perhaps I should reconsider and add a mention about that to the developer docs.
Posted Apr 13, 2011 21:01 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
I think its entirely ethical for a central authority, even a for-profit one, to make that sort of request as long as they contributor really does have the ability to say no. As long as the incorporation of contribution in question is not held up because of a lack of requested assignment, then I don't see a problem with.
I have no problem with contributors choosing to gift their copyrights as long as its a gift freely given with no explicit or implicit strings attached with regard to their standing as a contributor or the incorporation of their submitted work.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 5:02 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Unless you would accept a patch without the contributor signing the legal agreement, I would say it is still a requirement albeit a politely worded one. There is nothing inherently wrong with requirements as long as they are explicit.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:54 UTC (Thu) by zooko (subscriber, #2589)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds