Re: Re: cvs: CVSROOT / avail loginfo

On 20.12.2007, at 19:19, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

Of course. The only difference being that if users of my code cannot fallback on a CLA as a deflector, they have a much bigger interest in

Deflector of what? CLA gives the users of the code reasonable - not 100%, but reasonably good - warranty that their behind stays out of trouble when they use the code, because CLA signer is aware that he has the rights to the code and gives the rights to use the code to them.

getting the case thrown out. If they can fallback on a CLA they can instead choose to just rewrite the code in question and leave me alone while I fight in court to ever have fun in life again (and again I

Fight in court with whom? On what charges? What the court suddenly has to do with it and how we landed there at all?

believe its horrible that CLA proponents keep putting forth the argument that single developers will not get dragged into court anyways, so they need not worry).

I didn't hear such argument even once, so I have no idea who you are arguing with right now.

So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is. My understand is that with all contributions done under a CLA it becomes fairly easy for all users of the code to simply point anyone sueing to the relevant contributor. The given code can be replaced and life goes on except for the contributor. Without a CLA is becomes much harder for the various users to pull their head out of things as easily, which means they will have a much greater interest in getting the case dismissed entirely. If that is not the purpose of a CLA, then what is its purpose? regards, Lukas