Regardless, I would have to notify legal teams about amendment of the existing CLA. If organizations that already signed the agreement don't have any say, then this conversation is pointless.
-Pasha On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, r...@open-mpi.org <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > The OMPI community members have had their respective legal offices review > the changes, but we decided to provide notice and get input from others > prior to the formal vote of acceptance. Once approved, there will no longer > be a CLA at all. The only requirement for contribution will be the sign-off. > > Rationale: the open source world has evolved considerably since we first > initiated the project. The sign-off method has become the most commonly > used one for accepting contributions. The CLA was intended primarily to > protect the contributor, not the project, as it ensured that the > contributor had discussed their contribution with their employer prior to > submitting it. > > This approach puts more responsibility on the contributor. It doesn’t > impact the project very much - trying to “relicense” OMPI would be just as > problematic today as under the revised bylaws, and quite frankly is > something we would never envision attempting. > > The frequency with which OMPI is receiving pull requests from non-members > is the driving force here. We have traditionally accepted such > contributions “if they are small”, but that is too arbitrary. We either > have to reject all such contributions, or move to a model that allows them. > We collectively decided to pursue the latter approach, and hence the change > to the bylaws. > > Just to be clear: only official OMPI members have a vote in this matter. > If you are not a “member” (e.g., you are a “contributor” status), then this > is only informational. We respect and want your input, but you don’t > actually have a vote on this matter. > > HTH > Ralph > > > On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:24 AM, Pavel Shamis <pasharesea...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, at least on my side I will not be able to provide the answer without > legal involvement. > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet < > gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My understanding is there will be a vote, and the question will be >> "Do we replace existing CLA with the new one ?" >> If we vote to do so, then everyone will have to sign-off their commits, >> regardless they previously had (or not) signed a CA >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gilles >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Pavel Shamis <pasharesea...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> a. As a developer I think it is a good idea to lower barriers for code >>> contribution. >>> b. IANAL, but this "signature/certification" is not identical to the >>> existing CLA, which I think has special statement about patents. Seems like >>> the new model is a bit more relaxed. Does it mean that OMPI amends existing >>> CLA ? If not - what is the relation between the two. Most likely existing >>> member would have to take the "new" CLA to the legal for a review. >>> >>> -Pasha >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:38 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have >>>> to sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a >>>> signed patch. >>>> >>>> George. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis <pasharesea...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor >>>>> agreement ? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen <gpaul...@us.ibm.com >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community. The >>>>>> primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code. Details in the >>>>>> proposal (link below). >>>>>> >>>>>> Old Bylaws / Procedures: https://github.com/open-mpi/om >>>>>> pi/wiki/Admistrative-rules >>>>>> >>>>>> New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/om >>>>>> pi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws >>>>>> >>>>>> Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th. Please voice any >>>>>> comments or concerns. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> devel mailing list >>>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> devel mailing list >>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> devel mailing list >>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
