[Cryptech Core] contributor license agreement

[Peter Stuge]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> One thing that seems to come up regardless of which home we find,
> is the need for a contributor license agreement for the project.

> So the question for now is would folks be ok if we adopted
> something like the one that's used by openssl?  [2]

The question is moot until a rationale explains the "need".


> [2] https://www.openssl.org/policies/cla.html

So trying to do some second-degree analysis I find:

"The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under
which intellectual property has been contributed to OpenSSL and
thereby allow us to defend the project should there be a legal
dispute regarding the software at some future time."

Is that the full story with The Commons Conservancy? What are the details?


But - and maybe more importantly - what are the goals for "finding a
home" in the first place? What are the desired new and changed
processes within the project, respectively?


Popular choices are always convenient and of course politically safe,
but usually not the best.

CrypTech is relevant because we improve the state of the art - let's
not lose that.


Oh, and I noticed that The Commons Conservancy secretary's bio mentions
as an accomplishment "deployment of complex niche builds such as an
Internet voting system during national elections" - I don't know how
that fits with the project.


//Peter