Hi Joao, On 14/08/2015 10:49, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote: > On 08/12/2015 01:51 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> >> >> On 12/08/2015 12:54, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> I won't be merging any code with obvious aliases for exactly the >>> reasons John mentions. Obviously IANAL, but I think you'll find law >>> proceedings in the USA would look much less kindly on accepting >>> obvious aliases versus having a real name policy — which we do, even >>> if it's not diligently checked. >> >> It would be more accurate to say it is not checked at all. And it is the same for the Linux kernel. >> >>> Keep in mind that we generally have a >>> background on our contributors to track them down even if they are >>> using a non-obvious alias. >> >> As of today the Ceph repository has 427 contributors and 96 of them authored more than 10 commits. I would not be surprised if one of them was an alias. The only background check we do is when asking a new contributor about his affiliation to an organization (see http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/Ceph_contributors_list_maintenance_guide). 41 contributors declared that they are not affiliated to any organization and we did not investigate further. Nor do I think we should. >> >> You have a point: we know the vast majority of contributors, one way or the other. It is a small world :-) If a contributor you know insisted on contributing using an alias, for ethical reasons, would you turn her/him down ? Wouldn't it be better for you to be able to vouch for her/him somehow ? > > Call me paranoid if you must, but if we were considering liability > exposure of the project in case of IP violation, then this could be bad > for the one person merging the code knowingly a given contributor was > using an alias. > > Say this contributor did contribute something that he shouldn't have. If > he did ask someone to use an alias instead, and this someone went on > with 'okay, let's do this' and merged the code, I can't stop wondering > whether a lawyer would not take advantage of it, arguing the developer > performing the merge was complicit in the IP violation. He did know this > one person was under an alias, he did know who this person was, made > sure this person was not identified - "he most certainly knew something > bad was happening, AND DID NOTHING!" > > Also, what would the developer be expected to do if a court asked him > who was the real author of a merge containing patches that violated > someone's IP rights? Lying to protect the integrity of an alias doesn't > seem like the obvious choice. > > If someone is indeed interested in contributing under an alias, they > should just get a sensible alias that would be assumed to be the real > deal. And everyone can go on with their lives without having to be > exposed, at some point, to the nastiness of IP litigation if things go > sower, or having to lie to cover someone else's track if they cannot > avoid being exposed to it. It is quite impossible for us (non lawyers) to draw the line that separates paranoïa and common sense. Reason why most discussions on these topics turn short. I cannot dismiss the scenario you describe and I'm quite sure asking a lawyer would not clarify anything. Mostly because whatever the question, the lawyer answer will always be : "maybe" and never "yes" or "no" ;-) Yet, we are to decide what makes sense and what does not. If you ask the OpenStack community, the majority agree that it is necessary to have a CLA. If you ask the Linux kernel community, the consensus seems to be that there is no need for a CLA. etc. So, how can one make an opinion on a topic (s)he does not fully understand ? I chose to decide based on facts I have and favor what give us (the Ceph project community) more flexibility. I don't think anyone has any fact regarding legal troubles related to contributor using aliases. And since we don't verify contributor backgrounds anyway, acknowledging that we already accept aliases makes sense to me. The value of this thread is more about how we collectively form a consensus on a topic that has legal implications than the question of accepting aliases or not. As Greg mentioned, all developers/organizations holding a significant part of the Ceph copyright know each other. Whatever is decided regarding aliases, it is not going to have any actual legal impact. But it would be great if we can somehow come up with a consensus. Ultimately the decision is not for us to make anyway: we're not a democracy. But it's not because a community has no power to decide that it must not have an opinion ;-) Cheers > > -Joao > >> >> Cheers >> >>> -Greg >>> >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
