[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNUnet-developers] mob branch (Re: Updating my git work-in-progess

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] mob branch (Re: Updating my git work-in-progess branch?)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 08:59:04 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1

On 3/16/19 11:07 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> However this leads to another question we should write about:
> if someone on a regular basis provides code to the gnunet repository,
> at which point do we decide that this needs a CAA? Is there a threshold?
> How do we define "trivial patches" (I think we mention this on the
> contributions page)?

As usual with legal stuff, it's not easy to draw a clear line. Copyright
law imposes a so-called "creativity threshold", and usually a simple
bugfix is not creative but "obvious to any person trained in the arts".
Anyway, for this, there cannot be a hard rule, and the best answer I
have is that we should try to get CAAs whenever possible, just to
minimize legal risk.

> Can a regular contributor be someone who does not sign the CAA or
> will the step to regular contribution always lead to the CAA?

I'd hope that the CAA is worded in a way that we can convince all
regular contributors to sign it. If they do not, yes, we might at some
point be forced to refuse their contributions, but I really hope it will
never come to that. Note again that pseudonymous contributions are OK,
the CAA can be signed with a pseudonym.

> I'm asking really obvious questions here not from my perspective,
> because these are questions people might have and we should answer
> them.

Agreed. Might even be useful to add some of this to the FAQ.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]