[cdwg] [wc-discuss] Re: Contributor agreement

[Peter Jones]

Absolutely correct. Whamcloud suggested this and gained agreement from 
OpenSFS,  EOFS and (the now defunct) HPCFS before proceeding with the 
2.1 release collaboration.

On 12-08-23 1:04 PM, Peter Bojanic wrote:
> Cory,
>
> It was WC's decision, and I'm in agreement, that there be _no_ contributor agreement for the Lustre community tree. The objective here is that no one entity has copyright assignments and the Lustre IP, by design, becomes IP contaminated. This way, no one entity can lay claim to the modern code base -- ever.
>
> Cheers,
> Bojanic
>
> On 2012-08-23, at 15:59 , Cory Spitz wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> http://wiki.whamcloud.com/display/PUB/Lustre+Development states that:
>>
>>> Whamcloud has an open code submission policy that does not require copyright sign-over.
>> Does that mean that there isn't contribution agreement at all any longer?
>>
>> I couldn't find up-to-date info at opensfs.org.
>>
>> Are the CDGW and OpenSFS, WC-Intel, and other organizations in agreement
>> on a contribution policy (or lack thereof)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Cory
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdwg mailing list
>> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>
>

-- 
Peter Jones
Whamcloud, Inc.
www.whamcloud.com