| 1 |
(Resending since I sent the first copy to gentoo-dev-announce instead |
| 2 |
of gentoo-dev) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
The first email said: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> With Regard to Copyright Assignment |
| 8 |
> We'd like to propose that we create an agreement similar to the FSFe |
| 9 |
> FLA and what is used by KDE to allow for VOLUNTARY assignment of |
| 10 |
> copyright to the Gentoo Foundation. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
And the second says: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 15 |
> If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined, |
| 16 |
> which includes a mandatory requirement to sign a contributor license |
| 17 |
> agreement and an option to also sign an assignment-like document based |
| 18 |
> on the FSFe FLA, please speak up this week. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Voluntary to mandatory. That seems pretty fucking different? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't know if this was an oversight, a mistake, or a deliberate |
| 23 |
change, (or maybe I just misread?) but it needs to be addressed. |
Archives