Code forking (section 29-30)
Reading over the section 29 and 30, I think what is being discussed here is avoiding diverging forks and reads like "forking is bad". As someone that works in open source code daily, my understanding of the term "fork" is a positive thing. I can take a fork (a copy of the code) and make my changes without having ask and then from my fork offer code back to the original project (after discussion of my feature change with the original maintainer of course!).
I think that 1) perhaps a better phrase than "Code forking" for this section might make sense (any idea?) and; 2) this sections purpose seems to be about code contributions back to existing open source projects and; 3) this section is trying to guide agencies to use the canonical versions of code repositories rather than diverging forks of released open source projects.
I'd love to hear some comments around this. :thumbsup:
Cam Findlay started a proposal Thu 28 Apr 2016
Principles about the licensing aspects of contributions and Contributor License Agreements should be included in NZGOAL-SE Closed Sun 1 May 2016
NZGOAL-SE is all about dealing with licensing. One aspect of licensing that I think needs to be addressed in the policy itself is that of dealing with how licensing works when a member of the public or another government agency staff member makes a contribution to a project once it has been released on open source terms.
I don't think it's currently clear in the wording of the draft. There is mention if modifying the code (presumably in a copy of it) to use the existing licensing from the original project, however raising a pull request (a proposal of a fix/improvement to code) might be on the original code repository not a copy.
This proposal suggests that some principles about how you might deal with considering contributions to projects once released may have a place in NZGOAL-SE in particular:
1) Projects should include a README or CONTRIBUTING file that explains how contributions will be incorporated into the code base and under what terms.
2) A clear statement should be included in the above file about copyright assignment. Does the contributor retain copyright and license their contribution to the project OR does the contributor assign copyright to the project maintainer and in return, gain the bundle of rights to use/modify/redistribute under the license already in the project? When would you chose either approach or should one be the recommended?
3) Guidance on when a Contributor Licensing Agreement (CLA) should be signed by a contributor (guidance notes could explain how to do this and the when and why should be in the policy).
|Agree - 1|
|Abstain - 1|
|Disagree - 1|
|Block - 1|