CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Sean Allred]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2100 bytes --]

Hello all,

This is my first time posting to this list, so bear with me for any conventions I might unwittingly ignore :)

I’m the maintainer (or at least one of them) of `sx.el', a new and quickly growing StackExchange client for Emacs.  (StackExchange includes all the sites similar to StackOverflow, SuperUser, ServerFault, and the host of other specialized sites such as Emacs.StackExchange.com <http://emacs.stackexchange.com/>.)  I would very much like to submit this to the GNU ELPA (and have been invited to do so), but the greatest hurdle to contributing (that I’m sure I share) is the FSF copyright assignment.

Let me be clear: I realize the assignment is an essential and absolutely necessary part of contributing to free software.  There may or may not be discussion on this topic in and of itself — I don’t know — but the underlying concept is crucial.

The foremost reservation I had/have about submitting `sx.el’ is the possibility of hindering development by virtue of the copyright assignment process.  I understand that it’s not a terribly complicated process, but it is also paper-based.  (Disclaimer: I’ve never seen the forms, so I don’t have the experience to base this on.)  This is a terrible deterrent for contributors; it is seen as a significant time investment.

I post here to bring to discussion a resource called CLAHub [1].  This service integrates with GitHub (the repository host for `sx.el’ and a host of other packages on the MELPA) to provide pull request statusing akin to Travis CI and Code Climate. With GitHub’s recent blog announcement [2], this information will be visible on the pull request’s page as the merge is discussed.

Can GNU/the FSF use this resource to fulfill its copyright assignment?

All the best,
Sean Allred

[1]: https://github.com/clahub/clahub <https://github.com/clahub/clahub>; https://www.clahub.com <https://www.clahub.com/>
[2]: https://github.com/blog/1935-see-results-from-all-pull-request-status-checks <https://github.com/blog/1935-see-results-from-all-pull-request-status-checks>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2899 bytes --]

Re: CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Paul Eggert]

Sean Allred wrote:
> I understand that it’s not a terribly complicated process, but it is also paper-based.

It used to be, but I understand it's now electronic.

Re: CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Rasmus]

Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

> Sean Allred wrote:
>> I understand that it’s not a terribly complicated process, but it is
>> also paper-based.
>
> It used to be, but I understand it's now electronic.

For some countries, e.g. the USA.

I think the default is still paper-based.  At least I was asked to send
papers for another GNU project within the last three months.

—Rasmus

-- 
⠠⠵

Re: CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Artur Malabarba]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]

On 13 Dec 2014 14:53, "Sean Allred" <code@seanallred.com> wrote:
> I post here to bring to discussion a resource called CLAHub [1].  This
service integrates with GitHub (the repository host for `sx.el’ and a host
of other packages on the MELPA) to provide pull request statusing akin to
Travis CI and Code Climate. With GitHub’s recent blog announcement [2],
this information will be visible on the pull request’s page as the merge is
discussed.

IIUC, this information you're referring to is whether the author of the
pull request has signed the assignment?

> Can GNU/the FSF use this resource to fulfill its copyright assignment?

From what I understand, there are quite a few gnu elpa packages which are
developed on github. So I'm sure this convenience would be of interest to
some authors, me included.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 969 bytes --]

Re: CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Sean Allred]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 829 bytes --]


> On Dec 13, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIUC, this information you're referring to is whether the author of the pull request has signed the assignment?
> 
Yes, sorry :) IIUC myself of what CLAHub is though, the copyright assignment will have to be binding though CLAHub’s services.  That is, I presume some sort of text field with the contribution agreement and an ‘I understand and agree’ checkbox is provided by CLAHub.  Once the contributor agrees to the CLA, this agreement is reflected visibly on the PR discussion page.

I hope this would not boil down to a ‘CLA’ saying essentially that the contributor has completed the (separate) FSF copyright assignment.  This would degrade the service as a mere convenience rather than an open door for future contributors.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1269 bytes --]

Re: CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Artur Malabarba]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 386 bytes --]

On 14 Dec 2014 02:19, "Sean Allred" <code@seanallred.com> wrote:
>
> I hope this would not boil down to a ‘CLA’ saying essentially that the
contributor has completed the (separate) FSF copyright assignment.  This
would degrade the service as a mere convenience rather than an open door
for future contributors.

Ah, that's what I had understood from this, a convenience. :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 492 bytes --]

Re: CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Stefan Monnier]

> Yes, sorry :) IIUC myself of what CLAHub is though, the copyright assignment
> will have to be binding though CLAHub’s services.  That is, I presume some
> sort of text field with the contribution agreement and an ‘I understand and
> agree’ checkbox is provided by CLAHub.  Once the contributor agrees to the
> CLA, this agreement is reflected visibly on the PR discussion page.

I still have no idea what "CLAHub" is, but FWIW, the fundamental
requirement is that we need to get one particular copyright assignment
signed and we don't want to trust anyone but the FSF to verify (and store)
this paperwork (especially not a company whose incorporation bylaws make
its aim to be maximizing profits rather than preserve the users's Freedom).

> I hope this would not boil down to a ‘CLA’ saying essentially that the
> contributor has completed the (separate) FSF copyright assignment.

I can't see how it could be otherwise.


        Stefan

Re: CLAHub and the FSF copyright assignment

[Stefan Monnier]

> Can GNU/the FSF use this resource to fulfill its copyright assignment?

I do not understand how it could help with the assignment process, which
is mostly a process of getting the paperwork to sign, signing it and
returning it.  This process can be done "fully paperbased" and in some
cases it can be done partly electronically or fully electronically.
The details change overtime, as FSF's lawyers work out new procedures
that are more convenient while still being legally valid.

I don't think there's much tool that can be help streamline this process
(tho maybe a lawyer could help, or maybe lobbying some governments to
change regulations).

Of course, there's the rest of the issue which is to figure out who has
signed the needed paperwork already and who hasn't, and how to make sure
all your contributors have signed paperwork.

As maintainer of a GNU package, I have access to this "copyright.list"
information, but the FSF does not make this info public, since it could
probably be considered as a breach of privacy.

Maybe we could come up with some way to make it easier than having to
ask one of those people with access to the copyright.list.  Maybe we
could create an "Emacs Copyright Assigned" (ECA) GPG key, and signing
a GPG key with this ECA key would mean "this guy has signed the
paperwork already".  Then people can publicly put this signature on
their key if they want to advertise the fact that they have signed the
copyright paperwork.  Or they can show you the key in private if they
don't want it to be public.


        Stefan