On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 08:46 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > For what it's worth, in the Pylons Project, we decided to continue > > requiring the signing of a contributor's agreement (more or less the > > same contributor agreement as Zope requires). But instead of signing > > via paper, we ask that folks "sign" the contributor agreement by adding > > their name and date to a CONTRIBUTORS.txt file in a git fork of each > > repository they wish to commit to (e.g. > > https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.txt). The > > CONTRIBUTORS.txt *is* the agreement, and the pull request serves as > > proof that they agree to the contribution terms it outlines. > > > > I'm not 100% confident that this will serve as watertight proof of > > agreement in a well-funded court challenge. But it's a lot easier on > > the contributor and on the organization. The contributor doesn't need > > to use a fax or lick a stamp and wait, and at least if they're checked > > in they're fairly durable and have lots of backups (it would be very > > impressive if the ZF would be able to produce all the paper contributor > > agreements that have been signed over the course of Zope's existence on > > demand). > > Yes, I remember "signing" the Repoze repository agreement in a similar way a > few years ago. I liked it because it was convenient, sure. But as you say, I > doubt it would hold up in a court.
IMO, neither would be likely to withstand an extremely well-funded court challenge, because a well-funded legal team could probably convince a judge to disallow distribution of the code for long enough that it would effectively kill the project anyway. - C _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
