From 36f60a5d5b1bc9a12b87d6475e3245b8236775e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Todd Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:31:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] 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. --- CONTRIBUTING.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index fd1a912c4..06fcd8dd8 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";