[IAEP] [SLOBS] ICA or ICLA for SugarLabs ?
bernie at laptop.org
Tue Feb 3 08:50:15 EST 2009
[cc += iaep@]
Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero wrote:
> Thanks for your answer,
> and you are right this question is more suitable for IAEP.
And I side with Chris in trying not to bother our contributors with legal paperwork unless *absolutely* necessary.
If we must, at least we should consider:
- using paperless technologies (gpg signed email, web forms, etc.);
- using only very fair and informal agreements like the Ubuntu
Code of Conduct  and the USENIX Sage Code of Ethics ;
- in no case ask people to sing NDAs or copyright attributions;
> Rafael Ortiz
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org
> <mailto:cjb at laptop.org>> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> > Do we have now and individual contributor agreement or Individual
> > contributor license agreement for Sugar for Sugar Labs now ?
> No. We don't know that we want one, and the SFLC hasn't responded to
> our question about whether it might be important.
> It still doesn't seem like a worthwhile idea to me. Projects have an
> ICA when they're starting out and want to be sure to be able to enforce
> copyright on their work colletively, but Sugar's been around for a while
> and already has a mass of code that can't be retroactively covered by
> a license agreeement. So, the main positive point isn't applicable,
> and the main negative point about it being a huge turn-off for new
> contributors is still there.
> Feel free to ask questions like this on iaep@, I don't think we're
> trying to keep the fact that we're considering an ICA private.
> - Chris.
> Chris Ball <cjb at laptop.org <mailto:cjb at laptop.org>>
// Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
\X/ Sugar Labs - http://www.sugarlabs.org/
More information about the IAEP