[CentOS-devel] CentOS CLA (Contributor License Agreement)

[Jim Perrin]

On 06/29/2015 09:33 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 08:14:09AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
>> It's a bit too restrictive in some areas, but we can make some
>> adjustments as needed.
> 
> I'm curious which areas you find too restrictive. The list of
> acceptable open source / free software licenses? Or, you need to be
> able to accept unlicensed contributions? (Note that the list includes a
> number of very unrestrictive licenses, including CC0 and WTFPL (or NLPL
> if you prefer.)

A bit of both. We may need some unlicensed contributions so something
like "if you submit code you wrote without a license, the default distro
license of GPLv2 applies"  or something.

The other bit that may come up is the need to distribute non-free (but
legal) code. For example a hardware vendor supplies a binary blob for an
aarch64 network card, or a SIG decides to include the nvidia binary etc.
So long as they can be legally distributed without cost, it should be
possible.

> 
> While not _necessary_, it'd be nice to have basically unified
> policies here — maybe even to the point where one agreement might cover
> both CentOS and Fedora contributions.
> 

Agreed, or at least the ability to use them in layers. I could see a
time in the future where federated auth between CentOS and Fedora would
be beneficial.


-- 
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77