Hello Quanah, what will happen if all these things (like releasing rights) are done implicitly, rather than explicitly? How bad can such an idea be?
Greetings Дилян Am 6. Januar 2021 21:37:03 OEZ schrieb Quanah Gibson-Mount <qua...@symas.com>: > > >--On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 9:01 PM +0200 Дилян Палаузов ><dilyan.palau...@aegee.org> wrote: > >> Rather than requesting explicit actions, I would prefer something >> implicit. E.g. creating a LICENSE file, that acts as "GENERAL >TERMS": >> once you contribute, you agree implicitly to the general terms. > > It doesn't work that way. It's not just about conforming to the > license, > it's about releasing their rights to the project. That has to be done > in > some explicit method, which is why CLAs, IPRs, exist. > > As described via Wikipedia > > The purpose of a CLA is to ensure that the guardian of a project's > outputs has the necessary ownership or grants of rights over all > contributions to allow them to distribute under the chosen license. > > Longer term, this potentially allows for doing something like changing > a > license, if a project feels that's necessary. OpenSSL had to go back > and > contact *every person* who had ever contributed to the project to > relicense > OR rip out the contribution to do their relicensing for 3.0 because > they > hadn't always had a CLA/IPR process in place. > > Regards, > Quanah > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Product Architect > Symas Corporation > Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: > <http://www.symas.com> ------------------------------------------ Cyrus: Devel Permalink: https://cyrus.topicbox.com/groups/devel/T9066d56fe70247f8-M6ae9cf815e845fa322b0439f Delivery options: https://cyrus.topicbox.com/groups/devel/subscription
