Re: [open-regulatory-compliance] When is a contribution a contribution ?

["Maarten Aertsen" <maarten@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

hi DW,

On Fri Dec 27, 2024 at 12:45 CET, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2024, at 11:37, Maarten Aertsen <maarten@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon Dec 23, 2024 at 13:20 CET, Dirk-Willem van Gulik via open-regulatory-compliance wrote:
>>> Taking this - is this a good list of `tests' if something is a contribution to an open source steward (OSS) ?
>> 
>> I am trying to understand the problem space you are attempting to address.
>
> So I would like to have a set of tests, or guidance, [..]

So, I tracked until this point, then you lost me when you started to describe the origin history of the CLA. Then the last sentence made it click, thanks for that clarification:

> So I reallly would like a very easy (also for corporate lawyers & liability insurances of sole traders) to understand rule - if you contribute under a CLA - then you are essentially of the hook for the CRA for everything post that point.

I guess my contribution would be to bring up that whatever test or guidance text you design also take into account the world that does not use CLA's, but uses (implicit) inbound=outbound, or whatever other light(er) weight constructs people use. 

Perhaps it's useful to help CLA-users figure out the CRA using terms/tests that they are already familiar with. In contrast, for those who are not in that group, let's make sure to not create the impression that they somehow need a CLA, or the tests contained therein to comply. And that's because I agree with your observation about friction :)

kind regards, Maarten