[PATCH] Developer policy amendment re. non-disclosure

[Alp Toker]

Daniel,

I'm all for preserving a low barrier to entry for new contributors so
long as it doesn't raise the barrier of entry for smaller distributors
of LLVM.

The updated wording strikes a good balance between the two and sends out
a clear message that there's (1) no burden on distributors to respect
boilerplate confidentiality notices once the information has been made
intentionally public on the LLVM lists, and that (2) such notices are
furthermore a nuisance to other developers.

Amendment landed with suggested changes in r192958.

In case anyone missed the discussion and has something to add, this
commit welcomes your post-review.

Alp.


On 18/10/2013 08:24, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>> I've incorporated Daniel's suggested changes with line spacing and a
>> typo fixed, plus the internal link in the original patch restored.
>>
>> Am not particularly keen on the "to the patches themselves"
>> qualification but I understand Nadav feels strongly about this so have
>> kept it in the final patch as a compromise.
>>
> Ignoring any optional "policy-based requirements" (that in practice,
> nobody contributing to LLVM can possibly control), the reality is
> there are sometimes fairly immutable requirements around certain
> disclaimers/etc depending on job function and country.  They should
> never appear on patches, however.
>
> Honestly, if it was reasonable to blanket ban disclaimers on the
> mailing list, i'd be first in line (on principle alone).  But it's
> really not clear what it will achieve past making it more difficult
> for some people to contribute.   If the concern is the possible effect
> they have, the wording i proposed should take care of that[1].  If the
> concern is just that they are annoying, I don't think they reach that
> level yet.  Maybe someday they will (try joining a mailing list with
> lawyers sometime), and we should deal with it then.  If there is some
> other concern here i'm missing, I'd certainly like to hear what it is
> :)
>
>
>> Will appreciate one further review of the final patch from a third party
>> and explicit OK-to-commit before landing this.
> LGTM.
>
>> Alp.
>>
> [1] Caselaw in the US is a little mixed, but basically "unenforceable"
> in general, maybe helpful when it comes to preserving attorney-client
> privilege. They also have interesting side effects.  As one lawyer
> wrote, "it's very hard to argue to a judge you have an appropriate
> system for marking only privileged communications in place when you
> are marking your late night pizza orders with 500 word privilege
> notices".
>
>
>> On 17/10/2013 18:31, Nadav Rotem wrote:
>>> LGTM.  Thank you :)
>>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is an updated patch, which also takes into account an issue Nadav
>>>> kindly pointed out offline.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>>>> How about this wording for patches:
>>>>>
>>>>> When submitting patches, please do not add confidentiality or
>>>>> non-disclosure notices.  These notices conflict
>>>>> with the LLVM license, and may result in your contribution being excluded.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and this for mailing lists:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please be aware that all public LLVM mailing lists are public and
>>>>> archived, and that notices of confidentially or non-disclosure cannot
>>>>> be respected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Alp,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am against it. Your email does not match the clause that you want to add to the LLVM docs.  In your email you mentioned patches (which is fine), but in your patch you mentioned email clients, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Nadav
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch amends the developer policy to discourage corporate
>>>>>>> non-disclosure or confidentiality signatures on patches intended for
>>>>>>> review, which would be at odds with the LLVM license.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK to commit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://www.nuanti.com
>>>>>>> the browser experts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <llvm-signature-policy.patch>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>> <llvm-signature-policy.patch>
>> --
>> http://www.nuanti.com
>> the browser experts
>>

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts