How about making the above explanation in a "How to contribute to BackupPC development", and requiring a short note in the pull request?  Something as simple as "CLA:agreed"?

Kris

Kris Lou
klou AT themusiclink DOT net

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:37 AM, David Cramblett <david AT functionalchaos DOT net> wrote:

Yes. I think there may be too much emphasis on the term CLA. We could refer to the language under whatever term makes the most since. It can be a simple as possible and you wouldn't necessarily have to require it with each patch submission. It could be in a Contributing document within the project, on the wiki, or ?.

David

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Iain Hallam <iain AT nineworlds DOT net> wrote:

The contributor certificate of origin from the Linux process linked
earlier in the thread seems sensible and a basic level for what would
be needed. They require a shorthand at the end of every patch which
signifies that the contributor is asserting the contents of the
certificate:

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches?id=HEAD#n409

It affirms that the code can be contributed to an open-source project
and that the sign-off will be public. Real names must be used with an
email address.

- Iain.

On 19 May 2016 at 14:20, Rob Owens <rowens AT ptd DOT net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mauro Condarelli" <mc5686 AT mclink DOT it>
>
>> Hi,
>> please note a this spawned from something Richard Alloway wrote:
>>> If I can get approval to do any of this on work's dime (which I think I can do,
>>> since contributing to Open Source projects is part of my job), I should be able
>>> to get a little of 5:
>>>
>>> 5) Time
>> As I read it this means Richard's employer will explicitly pay for contributions
>> to BackupPC.
>>
>> My concern is said employer may, perhaps in a distant future, possibly after
>> being sold to some Evil Empire, decide they still "own" those patches and
>> prevent us from redistributing anything which includes them.
>> This is the problem we should address (if it exists).
>>
>> I do not want to open possibility for anyone to make BackupPC proprietary (I
>> know what Rob depicts has happened in the past and will happen again), this
>> should be explicitly forbidden in whatever solution we finally chose.
>>
>> Initial question remains: "Should we be concerned"?
>> This might be sheer paranoia, but I'm to ignorant in the subject to discern it.
>> If someone has a positive answer please elaborate.
>>
>
> My "I'm not a lawyer" opinion is that if the code is GPL, then we really don't
> need anything more.  Contributions/patches must then be GPL.  The angry employer
> scenario is a possibility I suppose.  Maybe each contributor must sign/swear that
> the code is his to give away?  Then if an employer raises a stink, would the
> issue be the contributor's problem and not ours?  Maybe, but I kind of doubt it.
> It may be a waste of time to try to prepare for this scenario.
>
> The chances of an angry employer scenario are significantly reduced, in my
> opinion, if BackupPC remains a non-commercial project.
>
> -Rob
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
> List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

--
iain AT nineworlds DOT net
http://www.iainhallam.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

--

David Cramblett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/