Coding Style
by Tim Flink
Since we're likely to be doing some license header changes in the near
future, I'm thinking that it might be a good time to start discussing
code style for our projects.
I'd like to be pretty much pep8 unless there are good reasons to
deviate from that standard. PEP8 is well known and tools to check
against it are widely available.
Outside any header requirements or directive documentation requirements,
are there any changes to PEP8 that folks want to make? If so, please
list the exceptions and why you think they should be adopted.
Tim
9 years, 11 months
Proposal: Use and Require CLA for QA Devel Project Contributions
by Tim Flink
As this has a decent possibility of being misunderstood, I want to be
completely clear on what I'm proposing, what I'm _not_ proposing and why
I'm proposing the use of a CLA.
I'd want to run anything we decide past legal (enforce-ability,
details of IP law and licensing in various jurisdictions etc.) before
actually moving forward but that's after we discuss the idea of
even using a CLA :)
What I'm Proposing
------------------
- Start requiring a CLA for all contributions to qa devel projects,
including libtaskotron, resultsdb, blockerbugs, core checks, etc.
- The CLA would not change ownership of copyright but allow a bit
broader license than just gpl2+ or gpl3
- The CLA would allow for re-licensing contributions under any of the
licenses specified in the CLA (this list is up for discussion)
* GPL2, LGPL2, LGPL2.1, AGPL2
* GPL3, LGPL3, AGPL3
* other (possibly future) fsf-recommended licenses (GPL4, etc.)
* Maybe APL2? Not sure on that one since it's not copyleft and we'd
have to rewrite bits to make that happen.
What I'm NOT Proposing
----------------------
- Requiring contributors to give up ownership
- Something sneaky.
* Seriously, if it seems like I'm proposing something sneaky/evil,
I want to get that clarified now.
Why Propose Using a CLA?
------------------------
I have three reasons for wanting to start using a CLA for qa devel
contributions:
1. With the gpl2+ vs gpl3 licensing question, I would like to enable
license switches in the future that are in the best interests of the
project, whether that means some gpl4 in the future or backing up to
gpl2. I think of this as attempting to future-proof some potential
licensing concerns.
2. I want to avoid confusion on how contributions are licensed,
especially if we go forward with the "project is gpl3, most code is
gpl2+" route. A properly worded CLA removes any confusion around how
a contribution is or is not licensed.
3. Suggested best practices for open source projects [1]. I think it's
highly unlikely that we'll ever need proof of IP provenance but it's
infinitely easier to start gathering that proof now instead of later
when email addresses may be dead, people difficult to reach etc.
[1] http://jacobian.org/writing/contributor-license-agreements/
Any thoughts on whether this is a good idea or a bad idea? Any changes
to the concept before I look for some specific verbiage and talk to
legal about it?
Tim
9 years, 11 months
