While reviewing the contributor docs, I noticed a few inconsistencies that may leave contributors unsure what they're agreeing to.
-
CONTRIBUTING.md describes a DCO; the CLA check enforces a copyright assignment.
CONTRIBUTING.md presents sign-off as "a lightweight alternative to a Contributor License Agreement" and links the words "Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO)" to CLA.md. However, the CLAassistant check requires signing CLA.md, which is a copyright-assignment agreement (§3), not a DCO. The described mechanism and the linked document don't match.
-
CLA.md preamble vs. §3 — internal contradiction.
Preamble: "...you reserve all right, title, and interest in and to your Contributions." §3 (Assignment of Copyright): "You hereby assign to Basic Machines LLC all right, title, and interest worldwide in all Copyright covering your Contributions." These appear directly contradictory, with no carve-out reconciling them.
-
CLA.md §4 references an undefined exception.
The patent license is described as "irrevocable (except as stated in this section)", but the section does not state any condition under which it becomes revocable.
Could you clarify which wording is authoritative and reconcile these?
While reviewing the contributor docs, I noticed a few inconsistencies that may leave contributors unsure what they're agreeing to.
CONTRIBUTING.mddescribes a DCO; the CLA check enforces a copyright assignment.CONTRIBUTING.mdpresents sign-off as "a lightweight alternative to a Contributor License Agreement" and links the words "Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO)" to CLA.md. However, the CLAassistant check requires signing CLA.md, which is a copyright-assignment agreement (§3), not a DCO. The described mechanism and the linked document don't match.CLA.mdpreamble vs. §3 — internal contradiction.Preamble: "...you reserve all right, title, and interest in and to your Contributions." §3 (Assignment of Copyright): "You hereby assign to Basic Machines LLC all right, title, and interest worldwide in all Copyright covering your Contributions." These appear directly contradictory, with no carve-out reconciling them.
CLA.md§4 references an undefined exception.The patent license is described as "irrevocable (except as stated in this section)", but the section does not state any condition under which it becomes revocable.
Could you clarify which wording is authoritative and reconcile these?