[Catalyst-dev] For people with svn access

[Matt S Trout]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 07:42:57PM +1100, Kieren Diment wrote:
> Lawyerly speak below.  Many apologies.
> 
> If you don't have permission to release your code to the world from  
> your employer (of if you feel that your employer doesn't care - e.g.  
> because they are small and don't understand the techincal issues, and  
> you're prepared to carry the small risk associated with this), DON'T  
> commit stuff to the catalyst svn repository.

If it isn't under an OSI approved license (or equivalent doc licenses for
non-code stuff), DO NOT COMMIT IT.

If you do so by mistake, I will happily perform appropriate repository surgery
to remove it from history.

If you do so intentionally, somebody -will- spot it and I will then perform the
surgery and permanently revoke your commit bit (unless the rest of the core team
intervenes on your behalf).

>  As a rule of thumb you  
> should understand that as the copyright holder of the code, you carry  
> the risk associated with posting it publicly.

And if you aren't copyright holder, make the fuck sure you've got permission
from whoever is.

>  The Catalyst project  
> is not associated with a legal entity, so the risk of releasing code  
> remains with you.

But as hosts of the repository I and Shadowcat are likely to be the ones who'd
get legal notifications.

And that means paperwork.

And I do -not- react well to paperwork being inflicted on me.

>  However in 99.999% of situations this should not  
> prove a problem.  We view commits as fair game, and do not seek  
> clearance from you to do whatever we like with the commits - your  
> committing to the repository implies that we can do what ever we like  
> with your code (and with your svn account).

Bullshit. That would easily be just as legally and morally reprehensible as
committing somebody else's copyrighted code without permission or an appropriate
open source license being placed on it.

But if you don't explicitly license it -do- expect code to be treated as perl
licensed and docs to be treated as CC-sharealike or so, since that's what
people are likely to assume is what you meant if you don't say anything else.
 
If people feel any of what I've just said is incorrect or unclear, we should
probably put together a clarification patch to the DevelopmentProcess POD to
be voted on (or preferably approved nem con as we usually try to achieve) by
the core team.

-- 
      Matt S Trout       Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project?
   Technical Director                    http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/
 Shadowcat Systems Ltd.  Want a managed development or deployment platform?
http://chainsawblues.vox.com/            http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/