Hi, On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > In the case of an attached patch, I grant you that the implication is > fairly clear.
Indeed. If someone sends a patch to us and doesn't claim otherwise, it's safe to assume that it was meant for inclusion. Otherwise they'd simply not have sent the patch in the first place. > But should a contributor argue at a later time that > they did not actually intend to contribute the attachment to the ASF, > here in the U.S. s/he would probably prevail because in no place did > we inform the user that an attachment was a contribution under the > ASL, nor did we have them perform an action requiring acknowledgement > of the contribution. If a case like that occurs, we just remove the code in question from svn. For larger contributions (bigger than just a normal patch) it's a good idea to ask the contributor to explicitly state their intent or even to submit a CLA or a software grant, but for normal patches the overhead is IMHO not worth the trouble compared to the ease of reverting or rewriting the commits if a contributor ever has a change of heart. BR, Jukka Zitting
