[erlang-questions] Contributor License Agreement for pullrequests

[Tuncer Ayaz]

On 11/28/17, Henrik Nord X <henrik.x.nord@REDACTED> wrote:
> 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.

True and since the SCO legal drama we have "commit --signoff" to make
it explicit.

> 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.

Your thought is valid, the name can be improved.

I don't think anyone will object to a DCO and that Anthony asking for
the rationale is a sign that CLA is a loaded term historically,
causing uncertainty.

Just to be clear, CLA which is just a DCO won't raise eyebrows, and
naming it DCO makes it unambiguous while also avoiding doubt or
contributor hesitation. Yes it's stupid, but names acquire meanings
that become hard to clean off. Humans are silly like that.

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

I'm not qualified to comment on the legal difference between "git
commit --signoff" vs a digitally signed DCO on record, available to
Ericsson, and if "--signoff" is a sufficient replacement.