similar to: New Trivial Patch Exemption Policy for open source contributions

On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided >>> that

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:03 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 3 Nov 2016, at 14:50, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> In particular, various corporate lawyers were worried about this > scenario that neuters defensive patents): > > Lawyers see risk everywhere, so i'll just go with "various corporate >

In an effort to streamline and consolidate how code gets submitted to puppet, we''ve updated the contributing guidelines. The changes were along three fronts: 1. Clarify what to target when submitting patches. 2. Reflect the reality that we take code submissions as github pull requests. 3. Simplify the explanation for how to get up and running as a contributor. We are also in discussions

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided > that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a

Last month, we started publicly posting monthly community metrics reports with all kinds of interesting information about the Puppet Community. I also realized that I did a couple of blog posts about this, but I had not posted it here on the mailing list for your reading pleasure. The latest version of the metrics can be found here: http://puppetlabs.com/community/metrics/ Here is a quick summary

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >> I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: >> >> 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. > > Yes, that is the cost I mention in the

Hi Everyone, I’d like to start a discussion about how to improve some important issues we have in the LLVM community, regarding our license and patent policy. Before we get started, I’d like to emphasize that *this is an RFC*, intended for discussion. There is no time pressure to do something fast here -- we want to do the right long-term thing for the community (though we also don’t want

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >> >>> >>

I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. 2) The apache CLA in general gives too much power (e.g. the power to relicense arbitrarily going forward) to the organization (in this case, llvm.org <http://llvm.org/>) which can deter contributions from folks who don’t want relicensing to be a simple act.

Dear list members, First of all thank you for your helpful advices. After your answeres to my firt mail I studied a lot (R-News n?5) and I tried to perform my analysis: First, to fit a GLM with a nested design I decided to use the function "lmer" in package "lme4" as suggested by Spencer Graves and Filippo Piro. I remember you that my data were: land use classes, 3 levels

Dear list members, First of all thank you for your helpful advices. After your answeres to my firt mail I studied a lot (R-News n?5) and I tried to perform my analysis: First, to fit a GLM with a nested design I decided to use the function "lmer" in package "lme4" as suggested by Spencer Graves and Filippo Piro. I remember to you that my data were: land use classes, 3 levels

On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >>> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> Please explain: why? > > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license > doesn't

> > > > Again, as stated before, both of these issues are covered by the apache > license. > > > > It has a built-in CLA that explicitly grants both copyright and patent > > rights from contributors when they make contributions to the work. > > Huh? How can employee X of company Y contributing a patch grant any > patent rights on behalf of Y? > >

I will follow up with you offlist. -Chris > On Apr 29, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On April 29, 2017 12:46:35 PM EDT, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at

We would like to encourage people to submit talks for the Configuration Management devroom, which is being held at FOSDEM on Saturday, February 1 in Brussels, Belguim and the CfgMgmtCamp.eu right after FOSDEM on February 3 - 4 in Gent (a 30 min train ride from Brussels) === FOSDEM Feb 1 & 2 === We are looking for talks from real world case studies, brainstorming and hacking around

I wanted to let everyone know that the videos from PuppetConf are available at http://puppetlabs.com/community/videos/puppetconf/ Here are a few of my personal favorites: CERN: http://youtu.be/-Ykb2j2ojYU Discovering and creating great Puppet Modules: http://youtu.be/aWqktlD62ks (talk actually starts at 4:45 min into video) State of the Community http://youtu.be/0_u_5RkVymE (I''m

I'm a week-old R user, and have become stuck trying to create usable CSV outputs for post-processing. I am using the package Rioja, which provides small datasets of results. I am running several analyses in a loop and iteratively adding the results to a *list* ("combined"). Within each iteration I use the following: > combined[[i]] <- performance(fit) With two iterations I

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >>>> >>>>