From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 532EB138334 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:52:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F358E09C8; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:52:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lj1-f182.google.com (mail-lj1-f182.google.com [209.85.208.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AE5CE096B for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:52:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f182.google.com with SMTP id l12-v6so2703641lja.1 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:52:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4h1RR7PbJ7p3wB0wLs1QxV39sPzICGt6u3i0KSK7k+A=; b=EJ6qqEflgvFYn5Ypn9pN7/S26vRSC8jE8AEGJbW0NL/xNsV/DrZkldLDWhNGa2Yo+o BhK4BCQjhx+DnNixfBkD/cEcdUpCxsCasaTj/GIvJ98N5xbbREaZp1HYrz0TPyzcIhsw sYMObFXVrErWFsQB0+PusDYtYNwM15xwyaezjrfQZV8buLghcWs1s2HuXIwI2QD/WkKz CQUljGHQvVyzNTuUqx+wMzfQC0lA9mCFlfcF4t7Kar5UdqZVzTFVG/KIEgAns3nGGghb l5TIFKaVLNm5xofo9TpeiQp1mPNYmH8rM1SCedeqK18BXJENjM4TTkFID8DwZRu3zTJn +whA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3EcR4Z1gY0ZRmiUy1CdlnV2EmVPGbbHgmXK8nCbXJ8nfZ5M1nx k0KkMDVdlsa0nqvRyPHGHZm3RSakyc2VF83c4qtYeQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJnwKOp5vDO6C/gfGLiapsTep8WJVorx657VFg/d6YOLo/v4QUy1Jq1ph80VhgY3qCNRMYvof+ZT6IVpW5xnkE= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:4310:: with SMTP id q16-v6mr7977649lja.55.1529959963996; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <23310.46809.293787.611345@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <23317.12829.91552.529904@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625013334.GA28404@kroah.com> <23344.37042.753481.563752@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625070525.GA6151@kroah.com> <23344.40875.105369.227774@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625110540.GB3058@kroah.com> <23344.65054.620110.958503@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <0a9228f1-338e-06a3-f3f4-6b27eea71408@iee.org> In-Reply-To: From: Denis Dupeyron Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:52:00 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: Poll: Would you sign a Contributer License Agreement? To: Gentoo project list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 3b9c17f3-929d-48df-ab89-c195f74a4774 X-Archives-Hash: a23200d6c6d81e8205d78a724a19a94d On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 3:31 PM Alec Warner wrote: > I think you paint a fairly black and white picture here. If there are *co= ncrete* issues then I want to see them here (e.g. adopting a DCO means thes= e 5 people cannot contribute without some additional work) because its up t= o Gentoo to work out these issues. Maybe that means accepting contributions= on a contingent basis while we work out the issues. Maybe it means delayin= g making the DCO mandatory for everyone. Maybe it means talking to lawyers = to discuss specific legal problems. I have no opinion of the document itself, whatever it is. I was just making you guys aware that if this did happen, I and a bunch of others will be asked to stop contributing in any form until the document, whether good or bad, was reviewed and us allowed to sign it. Again, you can make the document as suitable as possible to us, it would still have to be reviewed by our corporate lawyers. If somebody, somewhere, decides this has to go full corporate, i.e., to Japan where I'm suspecting lawyers are not very familiar with both US law and open-source matters, you're no longer counting in months. And again, we're talking about the maintenance and continued development of things like portage and OpenRc. I'm hoping I don't have to make the case to you that it's difficult if at all possible to replace paid developers with a loose bunch of volunteers. > I'd rather do a DCO and see things like "well we tried to recruit 20 new = people but 15 of them left because of a DCO" than be subject to unsubstanti= ated fear. At least on that basis we can decide that the DCO is 'too risky = to staff' and stop requiring it. But that would be an experience based on a= ctually trying something. You just won't get 20 recruits or candidates. You will get much fewer to none of them. Mark my words. Imagine the situation. Young software developer has to choose between living his/her life on one hand, and on the other going through our stupid recruitment system, wait for months, and then ask his manager to ask his manager to ask etc... that his/her employer reviews this document and clears him/her to sign it. This person will either do nothing or become an arch developer. We don't live in a vacuum. Again, I don't have any opinion on the document nor the process. I'm just trying to raise issues which I haven't seen being raised before it's too late. When our employer asks us to stop contributing we will have no choice but to comply.