Re: Patch submission

Ross Thomas wrote:
>
> Well, let's see:  Address, phone, fax.
> Unless they are not required for the CLA, in which case that should be
> indicated on the form.

One funny thing about that kind of documents is verifiability --- in the
case of potential challenges some smart lawyers may want to ask you
directly if you did sign the CLA your self and about your contributions.
CLA without a physical person is a piece of paper.

> Oh!  I'll happily post the patch.  But the indication was that it would
> not even be considered if it wasn't from an authorized contributor.

I am not the final authority on this sort of thing, but unfortunately
any piece of code accepted by Dojo should be covered by CLA.

> And a lot of the people on the list don't seem to want to use anything
> other than the sanctioned distributions.

IMHO this is a very smart choice, especially when your
product/company/reputation depends on Dojo or any other product.
Especially it is true for major companies.

>> PS: Hmm, it is a thought: forget about software development, let's sell
>> our contributor lists to spammers and get rich quick...
>
> Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

I hope you don't think that Dojo is a spammer's honey pot --- I was
joking. But it would be interesting to know what reputable open source
projects sold their contributors' private data. I really do want to know
some examples --- I want to be careful myself.

>> Nah, we love coding, and we hate spammers.
>
> Good.  Then it should probably be put (in some similar fashion) into the
> CLA text.

Now we are talking the positive constructive position. Personally I am
all for it. Of course it will take some time --- the Dojo Foundation
should contact a lawyer to amend the CLA.

Thanks,

Eugene

_______________________________________________
Dojo FAQ: http://dojo.jot.com/FAQ
Dojo Book: http://manual.dojotoolkit.org/DojoDotBook
Dojo-interest@...
http://dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-interest