governance: add a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) — but pick a site license first

[VijitSingh97]

Goal

Put a Contributor License Agreement in place so inbound contributions to the showcase site come with explicit, recorded terms — matching the org-wide effort in p2pool-starter-stack/pithead#292 and p2pool-starter-stack/rigforge#119.

But this repo has a wrinkle the other two don't: there is no LICENSE file and no CONTRIBUTING.md here. A CLA's usual "inbound = outbound" model needs an outbound license to point contributions at — and a website mixes two kinds of material that often want different terms:

• Code (Hugo templates, layouts, scripts/, config) → typically a permissive code license, e.g. MIT to match Pithead/RigForge.
• Content (content/, copy, images in assets//static/) → often a Creative Commons license (e.g. CC-BY-4.0) rather than MIT.

So the real first step here is licensing, not the CLA itself.

Prerequisite: choose the site's license(s)

• Decide the outbound license. Either a single license for everything, or split code (MIT) + content (CC-BY-4.0) — the common pattern for docs/marketing sites.
• Add the LICENSE file(s) and state the split in the README.

Then: CLA vs DCO (match the org)

Same decision as the other two repos — and it should be the same mechanism so contributors get one consistent process across the org:

• DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) — lightweight; Signed-off-by: per commit (git commit -s), enforced by the DCO GitHub App or an Action. Works regardless of which license(s) we pick. Recommended.
• Formal CLA — heavier; signed ICLA/CCLA recorded via CLA Assistant, gated as a PR status check. Better if we ever need explicit relicensing/patent terms.

Scope

• (Prereq) Add LICENSE + README licensing note per the decision above.
• Decide DCO vs formal CLA — match Pithead #292 / RigForge #119.
• Add the agreement text/policy (DCO 1.1 reference, or CLA.md).
• Wire up enforcement on PRs (DCO App/Action or CLA Assistant) as a required status check.
• Add a CONTRIBUTING.md (this repo has none) describing the contribution + sign-off/sign process, and link it from a PR template.

Acceptance

• The site has a clear outbound license (code and content).
• A contributor opening a PR is told what they must do, and a status check fails until they do.
• CONTRIBUTING + agreement text exist and are discoverable.

Notes

Companion issues: p2pool-starter-stack/pithead#292, p2pool-starter-stack/rigforge#119. Whatever mechanism the org picks should apply here too; no need to retroactively chase sign-off on existing history.

[VijitSingh97]

Resolved in #18 (merged). The outcome deliberately differs from this issue's original scope, so recording it for the record:

• License: a single MIT for everything (LICENSE), identical to pithead/rigforge — no code/content CC-BY split. Backs the README's long-standing "MIT, like everything else here" line with a real file.
• CLA / DCO: decided against both. The repo uses plain inbound = outbound ("by contributing, your work is licensed under the project's MIT License") — the same lightweight model pithead already uses. No CLA-Assistant bot, no signing ceremony, no required status check.
  • Rationale: MIT already permits a future commercial/proprietary edition on top, so a relicensing CLA only covers relicensing the whole project away from MIT — a remote case not worth the contributor-trust cost. A CLA can be added later if that ever becomes real.
• Also added CONTRIBUTING.md (repo had none) and a PR template.

Companion CLA issues pithead#292 / rigforge#119 are still open. If the org adopts the same "plain MIT inbound, no CLA" call, those can be closed too (rigforge would just need the one-line inbound note added to its CONTRIBUTING.md, which it currently lacks).