[IAEP] [SLOBS] ICA or ICLA for SugarLabs ?

[Bernie Innocenti]

[cc += iaep@]

Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero wrote:

> Thanks for your answer,
>   and you are right this question is more suitable for IAEP. 

Yup, +1!

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 [1] and the USENIX Sage Code of Ethics [2];

 - in no case ask people to sing NDAs or copyright attributions;

[1] https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct
[2] http://www.sage.org/ethics/


> 
> 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/