Update contributor-agreements.md #480
Conversation
Mention that Section 5 is sufficient for not significant contributions.
|
@rvs Review on this needed, please. |
| which states that any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion | ||
| shall be under the Apache License 2.0 unless otherwise specified. | ||
|
|
||
| All contributors of significant ideas, code, or documentation to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if there's a better adjective than "significant" -- perhaps we can pick something out of the formal definition of a de minimis-test https://www.lsd.law/define/de-minimis-test ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A contribution is "significant" if reverting the change would be a significant amount of work for the project. Reverting the change might be needed if the contribution is found to be improper, such as occurs when the contributor is not actually the owner of the intellectual property, or the contributor owns a patent and later demands payment for royalties.
| which states that any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion | ||
| shall be under the Apache License 2.0 unless otherwise specified. | ||
|
|
||
| All contributors of significant ideas, code, or documentation to |
Incorporate review comments and move the note up a bit as to not interfere too much with the CLA section wording.
|
Thanks for the comments. I have incorporated them into the patch. I also move the change above the CLA section heading as to not interrupt the description of the CLAs too much. |
|
Just to clarify expectations: I expect that once the legal team considers the PR to be final, they merge it. If you want me to press the merge button instead, let me know. |
Once @rvs approves this, I will merge it. |
|
If we include "significant" in the wording, I'd like to include an explanatory paragraph as above. Otherwise, we will need yet another PR to merge the clarification. |
|
@rvs bump |
Mention that Section 5 is sufficient for not significant contributions.