Re: [Individual|Corporate] Contributor License Agreement

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Frederic Bonnard <frediz@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging
> process of a library called libvecpf.

Thanks for raising this while doing the packaging work, it is important
to get this right.

> It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are 2 additional files which are
> agreements.
> Depending if you are an individual contributor or a corporate one :
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/ICLA.txt
> - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/CCLA.txt

There is no “GPLv2.1”. Do you mean “GNU GPLv2”, or something else?

In your assessment, are those additional “agreement” files binding on
any recipient of the work, to modify and/or redistribute the work or
exercise any other DFSG freedom?

> I see amongst some problems with :
> - contributor must fill, sign and send the agreement
> - reveal his identity
> - notify the Libvecpf Maintainer of any facts or circumstances of which You
>   become aware that would make these representations inaccurate in any respect.

If I understand correctly, failure to meet any of those requirements
does not affect the recipient's freedom to exercise DFSG freedoms. (They
are requirements that the maintainer imposes on *accepting* changes into
the official repository, if I read correctly.)

But I could be wrong. What do you think causes a DFSG problem?

-- 
 \        “This sentence contradicts itself — no actually it doesn't.” |
  `\                                               —Douglas Hofstadter |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney