[Flow] RFC: Drop CLA for Flow and Neos

[Helmut Hummel]

Hi!

On 15.07.14 09:13, Karsten Dambekalns wrote:

> Quote: Helmut Hummel wrote on Mon, 14 July 2014 23:17
> ----------------------------------------------------
>> I think one of the key questions here is what licence do we think is the
>> best for the project(s). I have no answer to that unfortunately. I also
>> suspect that it might be impossible to answer.
>>
>> But keeping a potential blocker for contributions just to avoid a
>> decision does not make sense to me.
>
> Well, we decided to use a CLA because we couldn't really answer that question.

Fine.

> Things have changed a bit, we now think MIT for Flow and GPL for Neos would be optimal.

Can you please elaborate on *why* "we" now think so? I think it is 
crutial to understand the rationale behind it to judge whether a CLA is 
still a good fit.

> But it might still be that things change,

True. Everthing can change. Flow and Neos could vanish because it lacks 
contributions because there is a CLA (really kinda sorry for the sarcasm 
here but I just could not resist ;) )

> so unless there is "proof" that a CLA hinders contribution, I'd personally stick to it.

So if you ask for proof that it enables more people to contribute, may I 
ask you for a proof that it does not? (no sarcasm here).

My point is: People that want to cotribute cannot just do it. They have 
to so something to be allowed to contribute.
As mentioned in my initial post, I'm pretty sure that the CLA is not the 
only thing that might hinder people from contribution, but (if you ask 
me) a pretty obvious one and also pretty easy to eliminate.

> Make it easier to sign if possible, by all means.

Did you ever prepared a patch, worked your way through how to setup your 
environment to be able to push to Gerrit, pushed and then got a 
rejection message mentioning the CLA? It is just one more thing...

> But dropping it would still be second choice, because we know the future will change,
 > so why make a future change harder than it needs to be?

I really want to understand the fear behind this. If I (and others 
complaining) understand it and it is perfectly reasonable I promise I 
will accept it an shut up.

But I don't understand why "we" hold upon something that (repeating 
myself) *may* distract contributors *now* to "protect" a future nobody 
can forsee.

Kind regards,
Helmut

-- 
Helmut Hummel
Release Manager TYPO3 6.0
TYPO3 Core Developer, TYPO3 Security Team Member

TYPO3 .... inspiring people to share!
Get involved: typo3.org