|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays

in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays

Posted Apr 13, 2011 17:34 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
In reply to: in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays by rahulsundaram
Parent article: Project Harmony decloaks

"What ifs" when it comes to trying to estimate the number of people who refused to engage because of assignment is difficult to use effectively as a rhetorical tool. We don't have a reliable measure or even estimate on that. From a strategic messaging standpoint I shun making that particular argument unless I can find at least one example of a specific contribution submitted in good faith which was turned away because an assignment wasn't agreed to. I have such historic examples for other codebases that require assignment. I don't have one handy for upstart.

-jef


The LWN site is currently under high scraper load, so comment display has been suppressed for anonymous users. If you are a human, you may read the comments by clicking the button below:

Note: you can avoid this step in the future by logging into your LWN account.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds