Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

typo in docs index page #1506

Closed
z-siddiqi opened this issue Aug 6, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

typo in docs index page #1506

z-siddiqi opened this issue Aug 6, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@z-siddiqi
Copy link

I would just make a pull request but I'm not sure about my CLA situation, so I'll leave this to someone else. See the typo below:

  • initialzed --> initialized

datasets with instant-load after they've been server initialzed. Or - Clone

@texodus
Copy link
Member

texodus commented Aug 8, 2021

Thanks for the head's up, we'll take care of it.

If I could borrow your issue to soapbox briefly - this is a good reminder of invisible cost of CLAs and how they can drag on a project. I've personally never been a fan of this practice, and suspect we've missed out on a lot of contributions due to similar concerns/uncertainy/antipathy regarding employer/educator/legal requirements. IANAL, but I'm also a bit confused as to what precisely is being accomplished legally by submitting them, given that

  1. To open a P.R. for e.g. Perspective, you effectively copy the entire project and submit a modified version back to us ..
  2. .. therefore your P.R. is licensed under the same terms as Perspective, unless you change the LICENSE file in the P.R. itself ..
  3. .. therefore should be nothing preventing us from simply merging said P.R.s, the same way we would incorporate any other 3rd party library within its licensing terms ..

More importantly, were none of the above true, would this not imply that anyone could block the development of any feature on any project with a CLA, simply by submitting an implementation of the feature and refusing to sign the CLA? Even if the implementation itself was "obvious", e.g. in this case with a typo, it reads like the presence of the CLA itself prevents me from merging fixes that we otherwise could have easily written ourselves, once a specific implementation has been claimed by a P.R.

Doing some quick research just now on similarly CLA disillusioned developers, I've learned about DCOs as an alternative used by RedHat and the Linux Kernel. This sounds ideal and practical to me, I will reach out to FINOS about switching Perspective to this model as well.

@texodus
Copy link
Member

texodus commented Aug 8, 2021

I see FINOS Morphir project does exactly this already.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants