in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays
in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays
Posted Apr 14, 2011 5:02 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)In reply to: in defense of "contributor agreements" or whatever they are called nowadays by zooko
Parent article: Project Harmony decloaks
"It's not so much a "requirement" as a polite request."
Unless you would accept a patch without the contributor signing the legal agreement, I would say it is still a requirement albeit a politely worded one. There is nothing inherently wrong with requirements as long as they are explicit.