diff options
| author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2016-10-13 19:31:52 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2016-10-13 19:47:43 +0200 |
| commit | 36f60a5d5b1bc9a12b87d6475e3245b8236775e4 (patch) | |
| tree | 1cdb1262d476d1bf3984191b0324091914342302 /CONTRIBUTING.md | |
| parent | e2b8c394d61de1e153b9b39d99c45654774f00de (diff) | |
| download | bitcoin-36f60a5d5b1bc9a12b87d6475e3245b8236775e4.tar.xz | |
Add copyright/patent issues to possible NACK reasons
Adding in response to a Slack discussion where someone was unclear on the fact
that a NACK may be justified if code can't be accepted due to copyright/patent
issues. For example, it would be reasonable and prudent to NACK a contribution
of AGPL-licensed consensus code on the basis that the license terms are
incompatible with the MIT license used by the rest of the codebase.
Diffstat (limited to 'CONTRIBUTING.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | CONTRIBUTING.md | 4 |
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index fd1a912c4f..06fcd8dd81 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -178,7 +178,9 @@ language is used within pull-request comments: - ACK means "I have tested the code and I agree it should be merged"; - NACK means "I disagree this should be merged", and must be accompanied by - sound technical justification. NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded; + sound technical justification (or in certain cases of copyright/patent/licensing + issues, legal justification). NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be + disregarded; - utACK means "I have not tested the code, but I have reviewed it and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged"; - Concept ACK means "I agree in the general principle of this pull request"; |