Excellent; thanks!
> On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Pavel Shamis wrote:
>
> Update: I got conceptual ok from our legal.
> - Pasha
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
> Fair point; everyone needs to look at this and decide a) if that's ok, or b)
> if we want
Update: I got conceptual ok from our legal.
- Pasha
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <
jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Fair point; everyone needs to look at this and decide a) if that's ok, or
> b) if we want to change it to incorporate clause #3.
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 2016, at
Fair point; everyone needs to look at this and decide a) if that's ok, or b) if
we want to change it to incorporate clause #3.
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Pavel Shamis wrote:
>
> I think one of the main add-ons of the CLA over BSD-3 license was the clause
> #3 (Grant of Patent License). A
I think one of the main add-ons of the CLA over BSD-3 license was the
clause #3 (Grant of Patent License). As far as I can tell it does not
appear in the new sign-off-CLA.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <
jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Pavel S
On Oct 12, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Pavel Shamis wrote:
>
> You mentioned that such a change will block contributions. Did you mean only
> temporarily, while individual Contributor/Member organization legal
> departments are reviewing the new terms? If so, that one-time "cost" may be
> acceptable,
>
> You mentioned that such a change will block contributions. Did you mean
> only temporarily, while individual Contributor/Member organization legal
> departments are reviewing the new terms? If so, that one-time "cost" may
> be acceptable, since the goal of the new terms are designed to put us
On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:46 AM, Pavel Shamis wrote:
>
> Regardless, I would have to notify legal teams about amendment of the
> existing CLA.
Sure, that's to be expected. I did the same (so did others).
> If organizations that already signed the agreement don't have any say, then
> this convers
According to the existing bylaws, only those designated as “members” have
voting rights when it comes to such administrative matters. The CLA solely
dealt with the right to contribute code - the membership “level” was a separate
matter.
In the revised bylaws, this tiered membership model has be
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 wrote:
> The OMPI community members have had
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-of
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 ne
With the new model, contributions come from individuals (e.g. not
organizations).
That means it is up to any contributor to check he/she is allowed to
contribute and how with his/her employer.
/* I am just summarizing a lengthy discussion on the devel-core ML */
Cheers,
Gilles
On Wednesday, Octo
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 Sham
>
> There might be no more contributor agreement at all...
> (See the discussion on the devel-core ML)
>
My concern (based on experience) that this may prevent some organization
from contribution. Obviously people would have to take this back to legal,
which may lead to a "freeze" in terms of cont
The term signed patch can mean multiple things, but I'm strongly in favor of any non-trivial code still requiring a contributor agreement. I can give some examples of why long term it makes sense if needed.Short v
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 ex
FWIW
There might be no more contributor agreement at all...
(See the discussion on the devel-core ML)
It might be just impossible to have two methods of contributing
(contributor agreement and signed-off patches)
IANAL and cannot provide any insight on why nor why not
Cheers,
Gilles
On Wednesd
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
wrote:
> Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
>
Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen
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 be
19 matches
Mail list logo
