Closed Bug 342029 Opened 14 years ago Closed 12 years ago
Update CVS contributor form; get agreement to new terms from existing contributors
There are a number of issues with the current CVS contributor form; the language doesn't reflect existing practice very well. This bug is for collecting suggested changes, and coming up with a set which can be run past the community, the Foundation, lawyers etc. Once the new terms have been agreed, we need to create a new form (as a PDF) and get consent to the new terms from all existing contributors - perhaps via some despot-based mechanism. [The current version of the form is labelled 2/01; that would make the new one either 2/02 or perhaps 7/06, if it's date-based.] Gerv
That was rather cunning; I managed to get a line feed into the Summary. Not sure if that should be allowed... (Firefox 2.0a2 on Linux). Fixing. Gerv
Summary: update CVS Update CVS contributor form; get agreement to new terms from existing contributors → Update CVS contributor form; get agreement to new terms from existing contributors Update CVS contributor form; get agreement to new terms from existing contributors
Summary: Update CVS contributor form; get agreement to new terms from existing contributors Update CVS contributor form; get agreement to new terms from existing contributors → Update CVS contributor form; get agreement to new terms from existing contributors
Any progress or other comments here?
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
No. We need to get hold of the original editable version of the form. Or, if we can't find it, to redo it. It's on my list, but not near the top - at least, until next month. Gerv
I don't have the original form, I think that dawn endico might have had it.
Thanks, Marcia. We should probably count it as lost, then, and just do another one. Hmm. I think the best way to do this is to type out the old one as a text file, modify it into the new one, and upload both so people can see the diffs and suggest further changes. It's on my list. Gerv
Dirk-Willem van Gulik points out that we may also want to take the opportunity to have agreements which companies sign to cover all the work done by their employees, rather than putting the burden on employees to make sure this is OK. Gerv
What I am specifically suggesting is a document like the Corporate CLA (e.g. http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt) or a generalized modication of the CVS form where the You is expanded to: "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the Foundation. For legal entities, the entity making a Contribution and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity are considered to be a single Contributor. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.
(In reply to comment #7) > What I am specifically suggesting is a document like the Corporate CLA (e.g. > http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt) or a generalized modication > of the CVS form where the You is expanded to: The CVS committer form is intended specifically to be signed by individuals, since it is individual developers who are granted commit access, not whatever organizations happen to be their employers. Also, the CVS form covers only people who actually commit the changes; it is not intended to address people who submit contributions to be committed by someone else. I think what we really need to address the "corporate contribution" issue is a separate corporate contributors agreement. I'll open a new bug to that effect.
Created bug 369879 to address the separate issue of creating a corporate contributors agreement.
I have typed out the CVS Contributor Form, and done an initial set of modifications to remove the CVS-specificity and generalise the idea of "Code" a bit. http://wiki.mozilla.org/Contributor_Form There is a list of open issues at the bottom of that document. Gerv
Just to confirm: Am I correct in saying that the primary purpose of this revision is to generalize the form to cover future source repositories that may not be CVS-based? If so, I agree that this is the best approach, and that having a generalized contribution agreement (e.g., for corporations) will be best done with a separate form. Other points: 1. I think the term "contributors form" may be misleading. What this really is is a "committers form" (or "committers agreement"). I suggest changing the name accordingly. 2. The agreement should indeed reference the Mozilla Foundation, not mozilla.org. 3. I think the crypto language needs to remain, at least until such time as the US government eliminates encryption export controls (which IMO will be a long time from now, if ever).
The primary purpose is to make the form more closely reflect current practice (e.g. in licensing and source control), and to make it generic enough that it will survive future changes in practice without needing to be re-revised. Re: 3) OK. But perhaps we need to define what is a "mozilla.org module explicitly identified as containing cryptography" more specifically, perhaps outside the document. Gerv
I've updated the draft form to take account of Franks' 3 points. There are still some open issues, though. Gerv
Please make sure that the new form is VCS-independent, as we're using a lot more than CVS now.
(In reply to comment #8) > The CVS committer form is intended specifically to be signed by individuals, .. > I think what we really need to address the "corporate contribution" issue is a > separate corporate contributors agreement. I'll open a new bug to that effect. Do then also address the issue of a contribution by a company effected through an individual - or allow an 'individual' to directly contribute a "corporate contribution" without being in the liability path. Dw
Gerv is working on this - note the URL.
The URL referenced in Section 3, http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/acceptable/, does not appear to exist :(
Indeed not. It's a draft :-) But you can work out the content of what that URL might say from the content at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ . Gerv
gerv, hecker -- poke? We're starting to use non-CVS VCSs more and more lately, so not having a VCS-independent contributor form is hurting us. What's the status of getting this new agreement completed and put into use?
Severity: normal → major
I'm happy with the status of http://wiki.mozilla.org/Committers_Agreement . I believe it's now in Frank's hands to get whatever approvals are necessary to put this into use. Gerv
> the Mozilla Foundation repository under the terms of this agreement. this implies there's precisely one such repository. there has been more than one repository since before i started contributing.
timeless: you are right; I've updated the text to say "a repository" rather than "the repository" throughout. Gerv
(In reply to comment #21) > I'm happy with the status of http://wiki.mozilla.org/Committers_Agreement . I > believe it's now in Frank's hands to get whatever approvals are necessary to > put this into use. What's the status of this? I'd like to start using the new form! :)
Someone who filled out a form yesterday pointed out to me the other day that updating this seems long overdue (mozilla.org verbiage). What is the status? No response to Comment 24, the last thing I see is Comment 21 which seems to indicate further approvals are necessary.
We've gotten final legal signoff on the new committer's agreement as published (in draft form) at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Committers_Agreement I've asked Gerv to prepare the document and related information for publication on www.mozilla.org.
This has now been published. See: http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/ Gerv
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
All the relevant content on www.mozilla.org seems to be in order. Marking as VERIFIED.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.