[PATCH] Developer policy amendment re. non-disclosure

[Yaron Keren]

Hi,

As a practical solution, rather than having to change company policies
(hard and time wasting), people can simply open a gmail (or else) account
for the purpose of submitting patches or LLVM-related correspondence. It's
easy and free.

Yaron



2013/10/19 Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>

> On 10/18/2013 06:05 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
>>
>> If everyone really feels they are annoying as all get out, the general
>> consensus is that this calculus comes out the other way, fine by me :)
>>
>
> They are not really annoying to me, but I have a practical problem with
> them. As I am not a lawyer, I have no idea how to handle such emails. Can I
> use information mentioned in them, can I use code snippets discussed in
> those mails, can I commit contained patches? I currently judge this by
> myself in a very conservative way (no patches, no code snippets, no ideas).
> I basically ignore these mails to not get into trouble.
>
> The example given by David where he sends patch reviews with
> non-disclosure agreement is a great example. I would be personally very
> concerned, as I have no idea if I can include those in my commit.
>
> So, for me having reliably defined how to handle such emails in the
> developer policy is important. Right now, I understand this such as that we
> can not commit patches, but that in-line code snippets and reviews with
> non-disclosure statements are OK to commit? Up to which size of code
> snippets? I have just the feeling this is again a judgement call I would
> not like to take by myself. Just completely forbidding those footers would
> make it a lot clearer for me.
>
> Given the small amount of non-disclosure patches, it we probably do not
> loose that many contributions if we ask people to remove those footers.
> In fact, if an official statement is part of the developer policy, such
> people could internally make a case why they need to be able to send
> emails without such a footer. If a company is interested in committing
> their patches upstream, removing an email footer that should not be
> enforced anyway does not seem to much to be asked.
>
> Cheers,
> Tobias
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/**mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20131019/c8364259/attachment.html>