[asterisk-dev] disclaimer hell

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Jorrit Kronjee wrote:

> A few days ago, I filed a small patch that fixes issue #0006934.
> However, I didn't know I need to sign a disclaimer before filing patches.

It is posted in the bug posting guidelines, and also there is a field
that directly asks you if you have a disclaimer on file while you are
posting your bug. Could we have done something else to make this more
apparent?

> I've been reading up a bit on this disclaimer, but I'm not sure I
> understand what to fill in. I see two disclaimers on
> http://www.digium.com/bugguidelines.html : one with more text than the
> other. Someone on this mailing list suggested that one is the long
> version and the other the short version.

That is correct.

> However, the way I see it, these are two different disclaimers with
> different parties to fill in on the dots. The website however suggests
> that there's only one disclaimer, so does that imply if I sign one I
> will be agreeing to the other too?

They are different documents, but serving a similar purpose. The 'short
form' disclaims all your copyright interest in the patches that you
submit for inclusion, which basically places them into the public domain
and allows anyone to use them in any fashion they wish. The 'long form'
allows you retain your copyright interest and distribution privileges,
but also grants Digium (under the name Linux Support Services, our
previous company name) a non-exclusive license to also distribute your
code (that you submitted) under any license terms we wish.

> I'm not very familiar with this kind of legal stuff, especially in a
> foreign language. What should I be signing?

Whichever you prefer; most people use the 'long form'.