I've formulated this according to feedback from @circlebuilder on decision-making, see comment here.
Decision proposal
Background
A two month long discussion that began with a proposal by @Caesar on 26 December 2022 sparked a healthy discussion within the community regarding the particulars of re-licensing the Forgejo software product to that of Copyleft.
The ensuing weeks found many participants anxious to resolve the matter and there was some frustration with the length of time and intricate dialogs, with a seeming inability to bring the matter to resolution. Eventually, a proposal to hold a vote was met with no objections and an election is now underway collecting votes in a poll to determine which license Forgejo will use going forward.
During the discussions,another matter was raised, that of adopting a CLA over that of a DCA vehicle, pending outcome of the licensing decision. @Ryuno-Ki posited that he was not agreeable to, as a contributor, assigning Copyright of this Intellectual Property to a project, and he and I discussed the virtues of another schema here - that the QT foundation uses a "One-time, Single Click" model, similar to the CLA model, exceedingly simple to administer, track, and maintain, using a Contributor Agreement that assigns license to the project by contributors, rather than assigning Copyright of the intellectual property the contributor created - an ideal compromise that allows the contributor (and/or the project itself, depending on the evolving project policies) the ability to gift contributions to, in our case, the Gitea project, under the MIT license that they use.
The Model that @Ryuno-Ki pointed to as an example of how we can simply boilerplate (with minor edits/alterations) to incorporate this simpler and more flexible method, is here. It is recommended that interested community members familiarize themselves with this simple and flexibile schema.
During that same discussion surrounding the re-licensing of Forgejo, another issue to change this project's CONTRIBUTING.md file to accommodate our stated usage of contributions was also opened here
Proposal
Considering the likelihood that the Forgejo community will adopt a Copyleft license moving forward, it is prudent to work in parallel to prepare for the adoption of whatever license is chosen and if a Copyleft variant is chosen, then prepare to accommodate the enactment which will occur on 15 April 2023.
-
Adopt the Schema used by QT project here and make the minor retooling necessary to accommodate our contributors and workflow.
-
Some tooling should be built into Forgejo, and preferably before 15 April 2023, to facilitate simple management of Contributor Agreements by both contributors AND if neccessary, their employers (it's the identical agreement), with respect to provenance and to ensure an unencumbered code base in the Forgejo Project. Currently, the QT project uses Gerrit, a FOSS product, yet it would be preferable to build the One-time, One-Click workflow to accommodate the Contributor agreement into Forgejo.
Who is affected?
- Forgejo community members, users of our software that benefit by virtue of a product unencumbered by intellectual property claims by other third party entities
- The Gitea companies, teams and projects - a seamless way is provided by this schema to provide gifted patches to that project by the Forgejo project or individual contributors to Forgejo.
- Forgejo Contributors - They are merely assigning a license to Forgejo, and not relinquishing their own intellectual property rights by virtue of assigning their Copyright to the Forgejo project.
NOTE: This will alleviate the need to sign each commit when contributing patches, making merge requests in the form of Pull Requests, Etc., under the current "DCA" method - although there's also nothing that prevents us from requiring signing each commit either.
DURATION - Scope of Time:
This issue should remain open until such time as a decision is finalized and adopted or rejected by the community, and should also be resolved by 15 April 2023 (the date we enact a Copyleft License for Forgejo - if we do).
In any case, I recommend this approach since I and others believe it is a good idea for a large project and can be used with any license that Forgejo adopts moving forward, yet I intend to close the issue even if not resolved before 15 April 2023, unless there is a compelling reason to keep it open.
Who can vote?
Anyone who takes note of the Decision Proposal can put up their vote.
I've formulated this according to feedback from @circlebuilder on decision-making, see comment [here](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/168#issuecomment-811470).
# Decision proposal
## Background
A two month long discussion that began with a proposal by @Caesar [on 26 December 2022](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/86) sparked a healthy discussion within the community regarding the particulars of re-licensing the Forgejo software product to that of Copyleft.
The ensuing weeks found many participants anxious to resolve the matter and there was some frustration with the length of time and intricate dialogs, with a seeming inability to bring the matter to resolution. Eventually, a proposal to hold a vote was met with no objections and [an election is now underway](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/183) collecting votes in a poll to determine which license Forgejo will use going forward.
During the discussions,another matter was raised, that of adopting a CLA over that of a DCA vehicle, pending outcome of the licensing decision. @Ryuno-Ki posited that he was not agreeable to, as a contributor, assigning Copyright of this Intellectual Property to a project, and he and I discussed the virtues of another schema [here](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/86#issuecomment-807560) - that the QT foundation uses a "One-time, Single Click" model, similar to the CLA model, exceedingly simple to administer, track, and maintain, using a **Contributor Agreement** that assigns license to the project by contributors, rather than assigning Copyright of the intellectual property the contributor created - an ideal compromise that allows the contributor (and/or the project itself, depending on the evolving project policies) the ability to *gift* contributions to, in our case, the Gitea project, under the MIT license that they use.
The Model that @Ryuno-Ki pointed to as an example of how we can simply boilerplate (with minor edits/alterations) to incorporate this simpler and more flexible method, is [here](https://www.qt.io/community/legal-contribution-agreement-qt). It is recommended that interested community members familiarize themselves with this simple and flexibile schema.
During that same discussion surrounding the re-licensing of Forgejo, another issue to change this project's `CONTRIBUTING.md` file to accommodate our stated usage of contributions was also opened [here](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/160)
## Proposal
### Considering the likelihood that the Forgejo community will adopt a Copyleft license moving forward, it is prudent to work in parallel to prepare for the adoption of whatever license is chosen and if a Copyleft variant is chosen, then prepare to accommodate the enactment which will occur on 15 April 2023.
* Adopt the Schema used by QT project [here](https://www.qt.io/community/legal-contribution-agreement-qt) and make the minor retooling necessary to accommodate our contributors and workflow.
* Some tooling **should** be built into Forgejo, and preferably before 15 April 2023, to facilitate simple management of Contributor Agreements by both contributors **AND** *if neccessary*, their employers (it's the identical agreement), with respect to provenance and to ensure an unencumbered code base in the Forgejo Project. Currently, the QT project uses [Gerrit](https://www.gerritcodereview.com), a FOSS product, yet it would be preferable to build the One-time, One-Click workflow to accommodate the Contributor agreement into Forgejo.
## Who is affected?
* Forgejo community members, users of our software that benefit by virtue of a product unencumbered by intellectual property claims by other third party entities
* The Gitea companies, teams and projects - a seamless way is provided by this schema to provide gifted patches to that project by the Forgejo project or individual contributors to Forgejo.
* Forgejo Contributors - They are merely assigning a license to Forgejo, and not relinquishing their own intellectual property rights by virtue of assigning their Copyright to the Forgejo project.
#### NOTE: This will alleviate the need to sign each commit when contributing patches, making merge requests in the form of Pull Requests, Etc., under the current "DCA" method - although there's also nothing that prevents us from requiring signing each commit either.
## DURATION - Scope of Time:
This issue should remain open until such time as a decision is finalized and adopted or rejected by the community, and should also be resolved by 15 April 2023 (the date we enact a Copyleft License for Forgejo - if we do).
In any case, I recommend this approach since I and others believe it is a good idea for a large project and can be used with any license that Forgejo adopts moving forward, yet I intend to close the issue even if not resolved before 15 April 2023, unless there is a compelling reason to keep it open.
## Who can vote?
Anyone who takes note of the Decision Proposal can put up their vote.