SCons
Release forms for SCons code
This issue was originally created at: 2008-05-23 14:46:32.
This issue was reported by: gregnoel.
gregnoel said at 2008-05-23 14:46:32
Per discussion at bug party, determine the appropriate release form(s) and get as many contributors as possible to sign it. At least all the "major" contributors (for some definition of "major") should be signed up prior to releasing 1.0.
gregnoel said at 2008-05-23 14:47:15
Bug party triage to 1.0 p1.
garyo said at 2008-08-20 04:42:47
Can be done any time.
stevenknight said at 2009-11-10 18:00:19
stevenknight => issues@scons
techtonik said at 2009-12-18 23:44:36
What is release form? Can Google Forms help? Should this be closed with release of 1.0?
gregnoel said at 2009-12-19 07:38:40
With 2.0 on the horizon (albeit distant horizon), something needs to be done about this. Steven gave it back when he dumped all the tasks back, but he's the one with the contact for the lawyer, so I think this still needs to be his. I recommend 2.0 p1. I further recommend that it not be pushed for any reason.
gregnoel said at 2010-01-18 14:45:17
Bug party triage. Steven to contact the lawyer and get this in train.
garyo said at 2012-09-01 10:01:49
Bumping all old issues targeted for past releases to 2.x.
bdbaddog said at 2016-01-13 16:07:14
Added Legal keyword.
@bdbaddog ping again: this was apparently something that in the past was thought important - sounds basically like copyright assignment to make sure the rights to everything are clear. But it didn't happen in 2010, and nothing specific has been enforced since. We ask for contributions to be MIT; we don't ask that they be assigned to SCons (I asked that question about a couple of ninja files, and in another context about a couple of test framework files, that don't have SCons copyright ownership listed). It's okay for that to be the case... but the issue here seemed to be at the level of "consult with the lawyer".
Right. It used to be a thing, but hasn't been for a long time. Safe to assume that most project do not ask for this any more right?
Many projects ask for a copyright assignment (CLA), which is roughly what this is, I assume (sadly, a number of those have used the fact that everything is assigned to them to change the license away from what it was originally). Other projects ask for a DCO, which is just asserting that you have the right to contribute this code, but don't ask for assignment. So it's still A Thing for many, usually if the project is corporate-backed (although all of GNU requires license assignment too).