| |||||||||||||
Not all contributor agreements are created equalNot all contributor agreements are created equalPosted May 12, 2011 9:47 UTC (Thu) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828)In reply to: Not all contributor agreements are created equal by dgm Parent article: Ubuntu developer summit
I roughly agree with that, but I'm not sure "lines of code" is a good metric for substantiveness. Sure, something which is around 10 lines is probably not substantial whatever it's doing (it's arguable you even have a copyright interest in something really trivial).
But on an ongoing basis, does it matter if the thing you've contributed is only 100 lines if it's doing something rather clever and really improves the software? Likewise, if you contribute twenty 10-line patches, are they insubstantial?
Trying to draw this line is why I think all contributors should be treated equally; otherwise it just becomes a divisive issue about trying to weigh the contribution people are making, and that's about as ungracious as you can get.
(Log in to post comments)
Not all contributor agreements are created equal Posted May 12, 2011 10:56 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
indeed, I forgot to mention that the trouble is in agreeing with the meaning of "trivial".
But there's no need for project maintainers to value contributor's code. Let'em do it themselves. Offer two sets of terms under which you will accept contributions: copyright assignment (for "trivial" stuff) and copyright retention for "substantial" stuff), and let their common sense do the work. And if you feel like it, you can always retain the right to reject patches offered under the "wrong" terms.
Not all contributor agreements are created equal Posted May 21, 2011 16:51 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Even then, saying "oh, your contribution is not substantial, so give the code to me or I won't take it" simply doesn't seem friendly...
|
|||||||||||||