On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... > By submitting a PR or sending patches to the mailinglist, the license is > implicitly the same as the project. Unless code from another project (with > a different license) is used, not specific extra steps should be required. > If code from another project with a different but compatible license is > submitted, that fact should be documented in the submission. > ... > Can you explain why developers should explicitly confirm they agree with > the OSGeo-Live licenses before getting they contributions accepted? Hello Bas, Until 2011 (around june if you would like to check back in the mail archives) we did not have a clear license. At that time we decided which licenses we wanted for the project overviews, the quickstarts and the scripts. We required everyone to agree on those licenses, by mailing to the list. This was clearly needed as there was no prior license. We continued requiring this for new contributors. You probably slipped through the mazes of the net as you got involved by updating packages first. Anyway to the point: I do see some value in explicitly asking whether people are aware of the license, especially for larger contributions (such as a new quickstart- often based on existing other sources). But I'm not sure a blanket CLA is useful for that, perhaps it is better to check it when such larger changes are merged (eg new files should contain an appropriate license). Kind Regards, Johan
_______________________________________________ Live-demo mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo http://live.osgeo.org http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc
