3 ms·
LLVM likely doesn't want to take the risk that a court could find it copyrightable if the author decides to file a lawsuit. My guess is that regardless of the t
by sour-taste 5y ago
LLVM likely doesn't want to take the risk that a court could find it copyrightable if the author decides to file a lawsuit. My guess is that regardless of the triviality of the change they're requiring these agreements.
I am not a lawyer.
- racingmars 5y agoThe article talks about options for remaining contributions for which they can't get in touch with the contributor, and says: "We can check if copyright even applies to the particular contribution. Very small contributions may not be covered by copyright, and hence may not need a license agreement."
- csunbird 5y agoIt is an anonymous e mail address, there is no way for anyone can actually prove that they are the contributer. not a lawyer, obviously
- Someone 5y agoI think that, depending on circumstances, it _can_ be trivial to prove in court. Examples: - If the contributor can prove they checked that specific mailbox during the period involved (for example from logs, or because the git repo of their system config shows they ran a cron script checking it) - If the contributor can have a few others state in court that they received other messages sent from that account around the time that must have come from them. - if the contributor mailed a few friends saying they contributed to LLVM, giving some details of the changes. I would expect courts to accept either as enough evidence.