Defined a new IP protection process for ECIPs. #162
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Mandatory use of Apache 2.0 for ECIPs, plus optional use of various copyleft license for the source code. Mandatory DCOs for contributions with real name requirement. Option for ECIP editors to override the real name requirement if they feel a contribution is exceptional.
|
I would leave the license options as they are, implement DCO, but with no identification requirement for developers. |
BelfordZ
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
| License: BSD-2-Clause | ||
| GNU-All-Permissive | ||
| License: Apache-2.0 | ||
| License: Apache-2.0+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| License: Apache-2.0+ |
BelfordZ
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
| @@ -293,64 +293,137 @@ To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge an ECIP, and | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Specification | |||
|
|
|||
| New ECIPs may be accepted with the following licenses. Each new ECIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. The License header in the preamble must be placed after the Created header. Each license must be referenced by their respective abbreviation given below. | |||
| All new ECIPs should use Apache 2.0 or newer licensing for the specification and | |||
| may use Apache 2.0+ or various other copyleft licenses for any associated | |||
BelfordZ
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
| @@ -293,64 +293,137 @@ To avoid doubt: comments and status are unrelated metrics to judge an ECIP, and | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Specification | |||
|
|
|||
| New ECIPs may be accepted with the following licenses. Each new ECIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. The License header in the preamble must be placed after the Created header. Each license must be referenced by their respective abbreviation given below. | |||
| All new ECIPs should use Apache 2.0 or newer licensing for the specification and | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All code contributed to a repository assumes the repositories license. Best to let legal precedent do the talking, and not even mention license at all.
|
@bobsummerwill Thanks for taking the time to look at this file. IMHO the best thing to do here would be to delete the file all together, and add a LICENSE file to the root of the repo, which contains the apache 2.0 license. The rest takes care of itself. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Defined a new IP protection process for ECIPs.
Mandatory use of Apache 2.0 for ECIPs, plus optional use of various copyleft license for the source code.
Mandatory DCOs for contributions with real name requirement.
Option for ECIP editors to override the real name requirement if they feel a contribution is exceptional.