6:18 p.m.
Hola a todos!
At this point, I think we've come full circle on the question of whether
or not to require a CLA for code committers. Just to get all the
information in one place, let me recap/summarize:
Arguments in favor:
1. CLAs can be stronger legal protection in case of IPR related issues.
2. Commons Conservancy (our probable home for IPR) recommends a CLA (and
has a template we can use for one).
Arguments opposed:
1. GitHub Terms of Service are considered by some (both within and
independent of idpy) to be more than adequate, particularly after the
February 2017 ToS update.
2. Getting a CLA from some committers will be impossible either due to
an inability to contact them OR impediments with their employers.
3. Requiring a CLA will (possibly) discourage some committers from
continuing participation in the project.
4. Code will likely have to be redone in order to work around
third-party code that comes from developers who cannot/will not sign an
CLA.
A few additional details
* There are 108 code committers who have submitted code to an idpy
repository BEFORE the Feb 2017 GitHub ToS. This number hasn't
significantly changed since then.
* In April 2018, I sent email to these individuals letting them know
that a CLA might be required at some point.
If I missed anything, please chime in. If you have any other questions
at all that you need answered before you can vote on this ([Yes|No] to
requiring a CLA) please let me know. I'd like to have a final vote on
this during our January call.
-Heather