Re: [Individual|Corporate] Contributor License Agreement

[Ben Finney]

Frederic Bonnard  writes:

> I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
> process of a library called libvecpf.

Thanks for raising this while doing the packaging work, it is important
to get this right.

> It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are 2 additional files which are
> agreements.
> Depending if you are an individual contributor or a corporate one :
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/ICLA.txt
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/CCLA.txt

There is no “GPLv2.1”. Do you mean “GNU GPLv2”, or something else?

In your assessment, are those additional “agreement” files binding on
any recipient of the work, to modify and/or redistribute the work or
exercise any other DFSG freedom?

> I see amongst some problems with :
> - contributor must fill, sign and send the agreement
> - reveal his identity
> - notify the Libvecpf Maintainer of any facts or circumstances of which You
>   become aware that would make these representations inaccurate in any 
> respect.

If I understand correctly, failure to meet any of those requirements
does not affect the recipient's freedom to exercise DFSG freedoms. (They
are requirements that the maintainer imposes on *accepting* changes into
the official repository, if I read correctly.)

But I could be wrong. What do you think causes a DFSG problem?

-- 
 \“This sentence contradicts itself — no actually it doesn't.” |
  `\   —Douglas Hofstadter |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: [Individual|Corporate] Contributor License Agreement

[Ole Streicher]

Hi Frederic,

these agreements seem to cover how one may contribute the code back
upstream. I think that upstream is free to put any rules here -- there
are upstreams that completely reject outside contributions, and other
require a transfer of the copyright. Everyting is fine here.

So, I would not see any reason why these rules would make the license
non-DFSG.

Cheers

Ole

Frederic Bonnard  writes:
> Hi everybody,
> I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
> process of a library called libvecpf. It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are
> 2 additional files which are agreements.
> Depending if you are an individual contributor or a corporate one :
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/ICLA.txt
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/CCLA.txt
>
> I see amongst some problems with :
> - contributor must fill, sign and send the agreement
> - reveal his identity
> - notify the Libvecpf Maintainer of any facts or circumstances of which You
>   become aware that would make these representations inaccurate in any 
> respect.
>
> Can anybody confirm those points ? (maybe others ?)
> If so, what could be changed to make it DFSG compliant ?
> Thanks for any help.
> Regards,
>
> F.

[Individual|Corporate] Contributor License Agreement

[Frederic Bonnard]

Hi everybody,
I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
process of a library called libvecpf. It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are
2 additional files which are agreements.
Depending if you are an individual contributor or a corporate one :
- https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/ICLA.txt
- https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/CCLA.txt

I see amongst some problems with :
- contributor must fill, sign and send the agreement
- reveal his identity
- notify the Libvecpf Maintainer of any facts or circumstances of which You
  become aware that would make these representations inaccurate in any respect.

Can anybody confirm those points ? (maybe others ?)
If so, what could be changed to make it DFSG compliant ?
Thanks for any help.
Regards,

F.