Re: magit copyright assignments

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Jeremy Bryant <jb@jeremybryant.net>
> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  stefankangas@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:36:21 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Jeremy Bryant <jb@jeremybryant.net>
> >> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  stefankangas@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:53:31 +0100
> >> 
> >> It appears I didn't explain my idea clearly enough, I'll attempt to clarify.
> >> 
> >> I am proposing a *separate*, much smaller, form, modelled on the main
> >> form.  A sort of 'package form'. The advantages are
> >> 
> >> 1. The wording can be agreed in advance to be the most appropriate.
> >> 
> >> 2. This 'package form' can be distributed by the Emacs maintainers to
> >> those volunteers willing to follow-up on package assignments, and
> >> everybody uses the best wording as per 1.
> >
> > If this is for us, then how is it different from just asking whether
> > they contribute the package?  The assignment form is a form because the
> > FSF assignment clerk needs to collect specific information, but here
> > no specific information is needed, just an informal agreement.
> >
> 
> 
> > IOW, why codify and formalize something that is informal to begin
> > with, and a simple question to ask?
> 
> Because, at least from my own interpretation of the thread, that by
> asking the question in an imprecise manner it may not satisfy the
> conditions set by the advice from the lawyer.  Hence the suggestion to
> formalize the question itself, even if short.
> 
> But perhaps this is an abundance of caution on my part, I have so far limited
> experience of following up contributor's assignments.

IME, the exact words to reach out depend on the package and its
developers, so I think it is best not to have any standard wording,
but leave it to the Emacs maintainer to come up with it.