[Harmony-Drafting] Harmony DCO

Allison Randal allison at lohutok.net
Sat Aug 6 13:11:09 UTC 2011


On 08/06/2011 12:12 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
>     Is there a need to mingle the Harmony brand with the Linux's DCO
> process ? is there something missing in the latter that is deficient,
> and/or could be improved on?
>
>     Can we not just point at the Linux DCO process and say "use that if
you
> want it" :-) I'm personally nervous about applying the Harmony brand to
> very different things 'Java'-style ;-)

It's not about branding. It's three things:

- We can just point people at the Linux Kernel DCO, but it was drafted for
the contribution policy of the Linux Kernel. Each adopter from a different
project will have to think through what is or isn't specific to the Linux
Kernel, and what their options are for alternations or variations.

- There is enormous benefit in the process of publicly talking through the
core values of inbound=outbound: what is the "norm", what are the reasonable
variations, and what is really unacceptable for FLOSS cultural values.

- The biggest effort of Harmony was not drafting the CLA/CAA templates. That
part mainly happened in the last 4 months. The biggest effort was in
building a community of FLOSS lawyers and advocates, and establishing a
community culture of collaboration, cooperation, and fair representation for
diverse perspectives. With that established community, we can dive right
into the details of inbound=outbound, rather than starting over from scratch
building a new community.

Allison

[Apologies for breaking the reply-to thread, I'm having trouble with SMTP at
the Desktop Summit, so resorting to Gmail.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/pipermail/harmony-drafting/attachments/20110806/5bc46f26/attachment.html>


More information about the Harmony-Drafting mailing list