1 |
On Monday 11 of March 2013 14:19:55 Greg KH wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
> > If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined, |
4 |
> > which includes a mandatory requirement to sign a contributor license |
5 |
> > agreement and an option to also sign an assignment-like document based |
6 |
> > on the FSFe FLA, please speak up this week. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I've already said this before, but I guess I need to say it again: |
9 |
> |
10 |
> If a contributor license is required to be signed, I'll have to |
11 |
> stop contributing to Gentoo. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Other developers will be also affected, and you will find it hard to |
14 |
> attract new developers who happen to work for companies that forbid |
15 |
> their employees to sign these types of things (a _very_ common thing in |
16 |
> the US, I have yet to work for a company in the past 20+ years that |
17 |
> would have allowed this without going through the company's legal |
18 |
> council for approval, a usually very difficult thing to achieve for a |
19 |
> single developer.) |
20 |
> |
21 |
> I was here when the copyright assignment form was dropped due to all of |
22 |
> the problems it was causing new developers (myself included.) Have you |
23 |
> somehow figured out how to handle all of the issues that were raised 8+ |
24 |
> years ago with the old assignment we had? |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Is there really no one around now (other than myself) that had to deal |
27 |
> with that mess in the past? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> History, forgetting it, doomed. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> sadly, |
32 |
> |
33 |
> greg k-h |
34 |
|
35 |
I'm not having any personal issue here, but I'm with Greg here, since this |
36 |
action means loosing any single contributor. We're a project ran by |
37 |
volunteers, we get more retirements than additions lately, and we can't even |
38 |
afford loosing anybody. -1 from me as well. |
39 |
|
40 |
Theo |