On 29 June 2015 at 11:09, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Second, the only problem I've ever had with the FPCA is that it is > written as a legal document, so causes people's eyes to glaze over. > > I've got an alternative to consider, which is a bit easier to read and > accomplishes the same thing. I wrote it with Richard Fontana, who was > lead author and legal counsel on the FPCA. > > http://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/Contribution_policy > > This policy is specifically written so that it can be reused -- it's > released under the CC BY SA. > > To make the goal clear for all -- if you have contributors to a > project, it is a great boon to have a clear contribution policy. > > These contributor agreements focus on what Richard terms "Inbound == > Outbound" -- incoming contributions are licensed under the terms of > the overall project contributed to. If there is no associated license > or coverage, the agreement provides a default one for code and software. > > It doesn't need to be a complicated policy (read the above, IMO it > accomplishes what the FPCA does in fewer words.) > OK this was brought up in Fedoraland before and I remember Richard saying that the reason for the difference depended on what type of contributions and what they may need to do later on for the parties involved. However, I think it would be better to get Richard to directly comment than rely on my bad memory or my inability to parrot legal theory. > This project is now handling contributors more than before (x5 or more > when you add the SIGs and other activity to the pre-existing Core, QA, > Infra, etc. groups.) It makes sense to have an agreement in place for > inbound contributions. Especially in the wonderful world of mixed up copyright laws. -- Stephen J Smoogen.