Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Henrik Nord X
Hello Erlang Questions!


As some of you already noticed, we have now added a CLA application for
github pullrequests.

This is done to ensure that we (Erlang/OTP at Ericsson) always have a
up to date list of contributors, and that you contribute code that you
are yours to commit, and free for us to use and maintain under
the Apache License 2.0.

If and When you submit a pullrequest for the first time (after this
change) you will be prompted via e-mail and a comment on your
pullrequest to visit the https://cla-assistant.io/ and agree to this.

We will then store your github username, first and last name and email
in much the same way as before.

BR
Henrik Nord
Erlang/OTP
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Anthony Ramine-4
What's the rationale for this?

> Le 27 nov. 2017 à 11:26, Henrik Nord X <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Hello Erlang Questions!
>
>
> As some of you already noticed, we have now added a CLA application for
> github pullrequests.
>
> This is done to ensure that we (Erlang/OTP at Ericsson) always have a
> up to date list of contributors, and that you contribute code that you
> are yours to commit, and free for us to use and maintain under
> the Apache License 2.0.
>
> If and When you submit a pullrequest for the first time (after this
> change) you will be prompted via e-mail and a comment on your
> pullrequest to visit the https://cla-assistant.io/ and agree to this.
>
> We will then store your github username, first and last name and email
> in much the same way as before.
>
> BR
> Henrik Nord
> Erlang/OTP
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Henrik Nord X
On mån, 2017-11-27 at 18:06 +0100, Anthony Ramine wrote:
> What's the rationale for this?

Same as before.
To make sure that the code is free to use for the community and us.
That you ensure that it is your code to submit.
And that you agree to the licence in question for the code you submit
to Erlang/OTP. (Apache License 2.0)

Before there was a email passed to and fro and the automatic handeling
for that was deptricated when we started using github as a master repo,
and pullrequests more frequently.
This should make the process smoother for everyone.

/Henrik


> >
> > Le 27 nov. 2017 à 11:26, Henrik Nord X <[hidden email]>
> > a écrit :
> >
> > Hello Erlang Questions!
> >
> >
> > As some of you already noticed, we have now added a CLA application
> > for
> > github pullrequests.
> >
> > This is done to ensure that we (Erlang/OTP at Ericsson) always have
> > a
> > up to date list of contributors, and that you contribute code that
> > you
> > are yours to commit, and free for us to use and maintain under
> > the Apache License 2.0.
> >
> > If and When you submit a pullrequest for the first time (after this
> > change) you will be prompted via e-mail and a comment on your
> > pullrequest to visit the https://cla-assistant.io/ and agree to
> > this.
> >
> > We will then store your github username, first and last name and
> > email
> > in much the same way as before.
> >
> > BR
> > Henrik Nord
> > Erlang/OTP
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Tuncer Ayaz
On 11/28/17, Henrik Nord X wrote:

> To make sure that the code is free to use for the community and us.
> That you ensure that it is your code to submit.
> And that you agree to the licence in question for the code you submit
> to Erlang/OTP. (Apache License 2.0)

So it's just a DCO (Developer's Certificate of Origin)[1] and not a CLA.

Correct?

[1] https://eclipse.org/legal/DCO.php
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Tuncer Ayaz
On 11/28/17, Tuncer Ayaz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/28/17, Henrik Nord X wrote:
>
> > To make sure that the code is free to use for the community and us.
> > That you ensure that it is your code to submit.
> > And that you agree to the licence in question for the code you
> > submit to Erlang/OTP. (Apache License 2.0)
>
> So it's just a DCO (Developer's Certificate of Origin)[1] and not a CLA.
>
> Correct?

Sorry, forgot:

If it's a DCO, then "Contributor License Agreement" is an unfortunate
email subject, since that suggests there might be copyright
assignment.
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Richard Carlsson-3
There's not a huge difference as far as I can see. In particular, I don't see that a CLA necessarily suggests any copyright assignment, even if this is sometimes done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement


        /Richard

2017-11-28 12:02 GMT+01:00 Tuncer Ayaz <[hidden email]>:
On 11/28/17, Tuncer Ayaz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 11/28/17, Henrik Nord X wrote:
>
> > To make sure that the code is free to use for the community and us.
> > That you ensure that it is your code to submit.
> > And that you agree to the licence in question for the code you
> > submit to Erlang/OTP. (Apache License 2.0)
>
> So it's just a DCO (Developer's Certificate of Origin)[1] and not a CLA.
>
> Correct?

Sorry, forgot:

If it's a DCO, then "Contributor License Agreement" is an unfortunate
email subject, since that suggests there might be copyright
assignment.
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Henrik Nord X
Yea, the thought is that you agree to this anyways when sending in a
pullrequest. 
The license information is in (almost)all file headers, and a copy is
located in the repo itself. 

if it should or should not be CLA or DCO?
Our thought was that this should be the least bothersome alternative
for you all. While still giving us a tool in the case of a copyright
dispute.

If you rather have a sign-off on all commits I think we are willing to
pursue such a option as well.


On tis, 2017-11-28 at 15:19 +0100, Richard Carlsson wrote:

> There's not a huge difference as far as I can see. In particular, I
> don't see that a CLA necessarily suggests any copyright assignment,
> even if this is sometimes done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrib
> utor_License_Agreement
>
> This page gives a good comparison: https://julien.ponge.org/blog/deve
> loper-certificate-of-origin-versus-contributor-license-agreements/
>
>         /Richard
>
> 2017-11-28 12:02 GMT+01:00 Tuncer Ayaz <[hidden email]>:
> > On 11/28/17, Tuncer Ayaz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 11/28/17, Henrik Nord X wrote:
> > >
> > > > To make sure that the code is free to use for the community and
> > us.
> > > > That you ensure that it is your code to submit.
> > > > And that you agree to the licence in question for the code you
> > > > submit to Erlang/OTP. (Apache License 2.0)
> > >
> > > So it's just a DCO (Developer's Certificate of Origin)[1] and not
> > a CLA.
> > >
> > > Correct?
> >
> > Sorry, forgot:
> >
> > If it's a DCO, then "Contributor License Agreement" is an
> > unfortunate
> > email subject, since that suggests there might be copyright
> > assignment.
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Tuncer Ayaz
In reply to this post by Richard Carlsson-3
On 11/28/17, Richard Carlsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There's not a huge difference as far as I can see. In particular, I
> don't see that a CLA necessarily suggests any copyright assignment,
> even if this is sometimes done.

Right, which is why I wrote "might". A less ambiguous wording would
be: "since some CLAs require copyright assignment".

Still, given that prominent CLAs have included a copyright assignment
clause, it's the first thing many contributors will wonder about when
they encounter a CLA requirement. Thus, I think that ditching the name
CLA in favor of DCO will communicate the agreement without generating
doubt or discouraging some contributors who see "CLA" and shy away.
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

Tuncer Ayaz
In reply to this post by Henrik Nord X
On 11/28/17, Henrik Nord X <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yea, the thought is that you agree to this anyways when sending in a
> pullrequest.
> The license information is in (almost)all file headers, and a copy
> is located in the repo itself.

True and since the SCO legal drama we have "commit --signoff" to make
it explicit.

> if it should or should not be CLA or DCO?
> Our thought was that this should be the least bothersome alternative
> for you all. While still giving us a tool in the case of a copyright
> dispute.

Your thought is valid, the name can be improved.

I don't think anyone will object to a DCO and that Anthony asking for
the rationale is a sign that CLA is a loaded term historically,
causing uncertainty.

Just to be clear, CLA which is just a DCO won't raise eyebrows, and
naming it DCO makes it unambiguous while also avoiding doubt or
contributor hesitation. Yes it's stupid, but names acquire meanings
that become hard to clean off. Humans are silly like that.

> If you rather have a sign-off on all commits I think we are willing
> to pursue such a option as well.

I'm not qualified to comment on the legal difference between "git
commit --signoff" vs a digitally signed DCO on record, available to
Ericsson, and if "--signoff" is a sufficient replacement.
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions