On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 15:48 -0800, Mark Slee wrote: > Well, note that this isn't strictly an IP issue. The issue here was the > committers list, not the IP of the code. I don't see why all the code > would need to be written by people on the initial committers list to > pass IP restrictions. > > These two seem like disjoint issues to me. All code in the codebase > today has been committed by an approved committer with the consent of > the people providing the patches, so things should be consistent on the > IP front.
The point to make clear here, and where folks are coming from, is that we will require an ICLA (individual committer license agreement) to be signed by all people who have provided any significant code to the codebase (beyond a couple of lines of code). We will need to identify all of these codebases, and then systematically contact each of these people asking them to sign and fax or email the document. Depending upon the nature of the contributors/codebase, this can be quite a bit of work. However, I've been through the process before, and it is achievable. I agree that the issue that you were referring to was something different, however I hope this at least explains where people are coming from with reference to IP clearance. Regards, Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
