This is the second time, that I'm aware of, that the wording of the CLA has
prevented a PR from being accepted.
While this won't help the first case I'm aware of, perhaps there needs to be an
exception/special-case in the CLA for code in RFCs, or other similar
publications, where the author is basically saying "you can use this". The
motive of the author may very well be done at the point of RFC publication, and
has no interest in personally submitting the code to every open source project
that may want it. As far as the authors are concerned, putting it into the RFC
is sufficient.
--
-Todd Short
// Sent from my iPhone
// "One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet."
On Jun 24, 2019, at 5:42 AM, Salz, Rich
mailto:rs...@akamai.com>> wrote:
* Unfortunately, the issue isn't the compatibility of the license - they do
indeed look relatively compatible to me - and the discussion on this thread has
so far been about that.
* However the contributor license agreement requires that the copyright
owner grants such permission - it is the fundamental basis of contributor
agreements.
Yes, compatibility is important. CLA’s are required only for new code
contributed to the project, not for code incorporated from elsewhere. So if
it’s compatible, CLA’s are not required.
At least, that was the position of the project and its former counsel during
the first two years of relicensing. Perhaps the OMC should raise this issue
with current counsel if they disagree, but from the public statements on this
list, it seems all but one agree.
As an aside, I’ve contacted the author and am having a productive exchange.
Dimitry has seen the emails.
