Just a codeowner manually signing license

[bumblefudge]

testing testing 1 2 3

[cla-bot[bot]]

Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have the users @bumblefudge on file. In order for us to review and merge your code, please contact the project maintainers to get yourself added.

[bumblefudge]

Not sure-- I'll wait for @expede to explain here for fear of misinforming off the top of my misinformed head.

I manually added us three CODEOWNERS here for the sake of experimentation, gonna try to re-check now

[bumblefudge]

@cla-bot check

[bumblefudge]

OK seems that we can "accept" their PR by adding them to the config file, not sure about how to handle anons. Personally, I'd say the individual contributor controlling the github account doesn't need to be doxxed qua natural person if they have signatory authority to waive IP/patent claims on behalf of some legal person that can show up in court, but I defer to others with more Community Spec experience than I on where the boundary of legal accountability should be drawn.

[expede]

Thanks for signing @bumblefudge 🎉

So every contributor need to add their own name in this way?

Yes. It needs to be traceable back to the committer.

Can it be an anon?

Anonymous? It cannot be anonymous because you're signing a legal agreement to release the intellectual property into the community ("I agree to not sue anyone who builds on top of these ideas"). This is more lightweight than the IETF and W3C, but the same basic idea. Blaine showed me the one that they did for OAuth 1 back in the day, and it's similar in content.

[expede]

Ah I see that @oed ended up in the .clabot file. If you could make a PR that looks like the Notices here, that would be helpful (or we can remove you from the .clabot — up to you!)

It's definitely inconvenient to have to do this, but it's WAY less inconvenient than doing it after the fact and having to hunt people down.

[oed]

Anonymous? It cannot be anonymous because you're signing a legal agreement to release the intellectual property into the community ("I agree to not sue anyone who builds on top of these ideas"). This is more lightweight than the IETF and W3C, but the same basic idea. Blaine showed me the one that they did for OAuth 1 back in the day, and it's similar in content.

I guess by anon I mean pseudonymous, e.g. can a random github account who we don't know who it is contribute?

[expede]

can a random github account who we don't know who it is contribute?

Oh I see. Hmm I don't see why not, but IANYL. @Identitywoman I think you have more experience with IPR than I do. Any thoughts?

[bumblefudge]

I think the question is more whether we ACCEPT the self-attestation of an anon github user-- personally, I think the employee/representative if the IP-holding org can be anonymous as long as the IP-holding org is both legally-registered and can corroborate that said anon representative DOES have signatory authority for said legal person (and/or signs separately that whatever is donated through said github account is their IP to donate).

P.S. @cla-bot check again plz

[cla-bot[bot]]

Thank you for complying with our IP regime! We appreciate the collaboration.