Apropos of nothing: I have yet to see any credible evidence that a "legal name" is actually required for a CLA (!= copyright assignment) to be valid, from a legal perspective, despite the claims of various nominally-FOSS projects
@joepie91 It's fairly obvious to me that it is: Take the article 7, paragraph 3 of the Berne Convention:
Article 7(3) In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection granted by this Convention shall expire fifty years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, the term of protection shall be that provided in paragraph (1). If the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work discloses his identity during the above-mentioned period, the term of protection applicable shall be that provided in paragraph (1). The countries of the Union shall not be required to protect anonymous or pseudonymous works in respect of which it is reasonable to presume that their author has been dead for fifty years.
Copyright admits that pseudonyms are fine, and these are licences, so they run on copyright infrastructure. I don't see the problem.
@joepie91 Correction. I meant to say it's fairly obvious to me that it is ok to use a pseudonym.
@joepie91
IANAL, but AFAIK in most (if not all) jurisdictions it doesn't matter whether you use legal names or pseudonyms in contracts / agreements.
So I think the reason for those policies is either a practical preference of the organization themself or mere ignorance
@joepie91 phi, a name is the top of the hill. hold your chair. https://mattermost.com/mattermost-contributor-agreement/