[erlang-questions] Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

[Henrik Nord X]

Yea, the thought is that you agree to this anyways when sending in a
pullrequest. 
The license information is in (almost)all file headers, and a copy is
located in the repo itself. 

if it should or should not be CLA or DCO?
Our thought was that this should be the least bothersome alternative
for you all. While still giving us a tool in the case of a copyright
dispute.

If you rather have a sign-off on all commits I think we are willing to
pursue such a option as well.


On tis, 2017-11-28 at 15:19 +0100, Richard Carlsson wrote:
> There's not a huge difference as far as I can see. In particular, I
> don't see that a CLA necessarily suggests any copyright assignment,
> even if this is sometimes done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrib
> utor_License_Agreement
> 
> This page gives a good comparison: https://julien.ponge.org/blog/deve
> loper-certificate-of-origin-versus-contributor-license-agreements/
> 
>         /Richard
> 
> 2017-11-28 12:02 GMT+01:00 Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED>:
> > On 11/28/17, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED> wrote:
> > > On 11/28/17, Henrik Nord X wrote:
> > >
> > > > To make sure that the code is free to use for the community and
> > us.
> > > > That you ensure that it is your code to submit.
> > > > And that you agree to the licence in question for the code you
> > > > submit to Erlang/OTP. (Apache License 2.0)
> > >
> > > So it's just a DCO (Developer's Certificate of Origin)[1] and not
> > a CLA.
> > >
> > > Correct?
> > 
> > Sorry, forgot:
> > 
> > If it's a DCO, then "Contributor License Agreement" is an
> > unfortunate
> > email subject, since that suggests there might be copyright
> > assignment.
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >