VVVVVV
VVVVVV copied to clipboard
TerryCavanagh
Consider a more complete CLA
I feel like this should have a proper Contributor License Agreement which gives you more rights to relicense in the future. So if #7 or something go through (now or in the very distant feature), then you don't have to contact all the original contributors (Remember MAME?).
Even now it's getting problematic to reach out to contributors because GitHub doesn't demand a proper e-mail address in commits + it doesn't allow PMs + some people only use nicknames in the contributor file.
Software like https://cla-assistant.io/ could also be used to automate this step, to avoid situations like https://github.com/TerryCavanagh/VVVVVV/pull/29#issuecomment-573341240
The issue with CLAs would be that some people are passionately against them; however, the same goes for the current license and the very lighweight CLA that already exists, so I don't think a more complete CLA would be problematic. I'm also not convinced that the existing lightweight CLA is even legally binding (same for the license). #notalawyer
I’ll leave this one up to Terry, since ultimately he’s the holder of the rights... this isn’t quite on the scale of something like Chrome or .NET, and I don’t expect to see this make any huge waves in the future like MAME, so our checkboxes should at least be sufficient, even if it’s not terribly verbose. The license was made with counsel so it should at least be valid (minus the issue in #8).
CLA's are harmful. FYI. Search that phrase on DDG and you'll see many examples.
@purpleidea This report is for improving the existing system, not whether or not we will use one.
@Moth-Tolias Presumably "Contributor License Agreement" - it's a much debated topic; this project already has one. @jakeNiemiec Presumably, DDG is duck-duck-go (a websearch engine).
Keeping the current agreement but using cla-assistant would be nice. It's definitely not a huge deal, but it's kind of annoying having to remove the Basic Stuff and check the legal agreement for each PR.
