Re: On Contributing To Emacs

[Akira Kyle <akira@akirakyle.com>]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 9:27 PM Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>   > I wish this process was more transparent than "send an email to
>   > assign@gnu.org and wait for a response". Why can't there be some
>   > webpage that outlines the process along with the necessary forms that
>   > I can follow and collect then send to assign@gnu.org?
>
> The instructions are complex, and depend on circumstances.  We can
> send them to a contributor who wants to know all the options we can
> handle; but having each contributor figure out what to do would be a
> lot more work for each, and would be unreliable.
>
> So the easy way is to let the FSF staff ask the contributor for the
> pertinent facts, then recommend what papers to use.  It is faster and
> less work for the contributor, and less likely to lead to errors.
> Please do not try to figure out on your own how to do that -- discuss
> it with the staff.
>
> Just in case this might have changed in the past few years, I asked
> the staff to verify it still works that way.
>

Okay thanks for explaining why the current process exists in the way
it does. I don't think this is the process described in CONTRIBUTE
though where it instructs one to download the form and fill it out,
then send it. Perhaps this could be summed up in a sentence and added
to CONTRIBUTE so someone understands why emailing assign@gnu.org is
the first step and this multi-step process? It may also help to be
upfront in CONTRIBUTE that this process can often take time so that
expectations are correctly set at the outset. That might help
alleviate some of the perceived difficulty of this process.

>   > Such resources exist but I, as a relatively
>   > uninformed newcomer to such issues, have to find them myself,
>
> You don't need those resources to submit FSF copyright papers.  I will
> look at the page you mentioned, but I doubt that SFC is trying to
> explain how to do that.
>

I know I don't need those resources to actually complete the
assignment, and I'm sure there are many contributors who just want to
get the process over with and don't care about the justifications.
However I think there are also contributors who, like me, are curious
as to why the process exists in the form it does. At least for me,
reading about the reasons for copyright assignments and understanding
the justifications behind them with examples of copyright violation
cases where copyright assignments has made a difference has been very
important in shaping my perception of the burden of the process.
Without such an understanding, I think it is much easier for a new
contributor to see only the burden, be frustrated at the process, and
even think it's entirely unnecessary. With such an understanding of
the important reasons, it feels less burdensome and is easier to
accept why it is a necessary prerequisite of contributing. This is why
I would suggest the initial email from assign@gnu.org include more
links to articles explaining these justifications, preferably from
legal or other experts on the topic, so that a curious new contributor
like me may educate themselves first, before sending an email, like I
did earlier to this list.