[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: opinions of snappy packages

Zlatan Todoric writes ("Re: opinions of snappy packages"):
> I forget about Canonical's CLA from time to time - but this solely
> should be a reason to not adopt it in Free software projects.

I think that's up to the individual maintainer.

If the maintainer is prepared to carry the CLA-less patches, even if
that means diverging from upstream and perhaps eventually becoming a
de-facto fork, then the CLA is not a practical problem for Debian's
users and other contributors.

Or to put it another way: normally, if you maintain something in
Debian, you might well ask someone with a patch to take it up with
upstream directly, and you might even decline to carry in Debian a
patch that upstream have technical objections to.

But if you maintain in Debian something with an obnoxious CLA, and the
patch submitter does not want to sign the CLA, I think you're no
longer entitled to refuse to apply the patch just because the patch
can't go to the ultimate upstream.

How much of a practical problem this is for the maintainers in Debian
depends on what the package is, but I think it's a decision for the
potential maintainers, whether they want to put in that effort.

This is why I was not concerned about the CLA for upstart.  The Debian
maintainer for upstart was very clear that they would be happy to
carry CLA-blocked-upstream patches indefinitely, and it was clear
they would have had the resources to continue to do that.

Does the prospective maintainer for Snappy commit to do the same ?


Reply to: