Thanks! I wasn't wanting to invent something new, I was just having 
trouble finding any light weight processes via googling, thus I figured 
I'd ask you all. I'll definitely spend some time checking out the DCO 
process. Hopefully the documents used in it are licensed (creative 
commons or something?) such that other projects can re-use em?

On 12/14/2011 9:56 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> Trying to post inline in GroupWise, apologies if it ends up looking
> like crap...
>
>> I*m imagining something where each
>> contributor/accepted-pull-request-submitter basically just puts a
>> digital file in the repo, once, that says something like *All the
> code
>> I*ve contributed to this repo in past or future, I have the legal
>> ability to release under license X, and I have done so.* And then I
>> guess in the License file, instead of saying *copyright Original
>> Author*, it would be like *copyright by various contributors, see
> files
>> in ./contributors to see who.*
>
> I wouldn't suggest imagining new things when it comes to legal issues
> ;)
>
> I would suggest considering the Developer's Certificate of Originality
> (DCO) process as adopted by the Linux project and others (including
> Evergreen). When Evergreen was in the process of joining the Software
> Freedom Conservancy, that process was considered acceptable practice
> (IIRC, the Software Freedom Law Center did take a glance) - no doubt in
> part because it is a well-established practice. And talk about
> lightweight; using the git Signed-off-by tag indicates that you've read
> the DCO and agree to its terms.
>
> For a recent discussion and description of the DCO (in the context of
> the Project Harmony discussions which were focused primarily on the much
> heavier-weight CLA processes), see
> http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/pipermail/harmony-drafting/2011-August/000099.html
> for example.
>