| |||||||||||||
in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadaysin defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadaysPosted Apr 14, 2011 5:02 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)In reply to: in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays by zooko Parent article: Project Harmony decloaks
"It's not so much a "requirement" as a polite request."
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.
(Log in to post comments)
in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:54 UTC (Thu) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
Actually we *did* accept patches to add-on modules without this grant of rights. I don't actually *know* if we would similarly accept patches to the core without that grant of rights. Maybe somebody reading this should test my resolve by writing some really awesome patches and then offering to support them in Tahoe-LAFS but not to grant us all the rights. :-)
|
|||||||||||||