cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com>
Subject Re: ICLA for contributors
Date Mon, 13 Jun 2016 21:17:34 GMT
It is the responsibility of the committer to get a CCLA signed by their 
employer if they are being paid for the work being done or have a clause 
in their employment contract that give ownership to the employer of all 
of the work that they do during their term of employment.

This is impossible to know unless you know the employee's situation 
completely.

It is worth asking the question about the rights of the employer of each 
contributor but you have to trust the contributor.

If contributors have ICLA's and their employer has signed a CCLA, the 
committer's responsibility for assuring that the contribution can be 
committed, becomes simpler.

Life for a committer just gets easier if every contributor takes a few 
minutes and gets an ICLA filed and if a CCLA is required, get their boss 
to sign one and put it on file.

I don't see any advantage in not doing this.

Ron

On 13/06/2016 2:33 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> CCLAs are completely optional - and no one (AFAIK) checks the employer
> of new committers as a general rule. (Plus, employers change)
>
> ICLAs are required for committers - and they explicitly say among
> other things that you won't commit things for which the ASF wouldn't
> have the right to redistribute.
>
> Code contributions from non-committers are generally accepted under
> provision 5 of the Apache Software License V2. So strictly speaking an
> ICLA isn't required. However, we generally would want to have an ICLA
> for any major contribution. (Think something on the magnitude of a
> distinct new feature; or something requiring IP Clearance, etc) This
> is essentially the person communicating to us that their contribution
> is being freely given and they are authorized to provide it to us.
>
> --David
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, John Burwell
> <john.burwell@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>> As part of committer on-boarding, the PMC requires each committer candidate have
an ASF ICLA in place and verifies the CCLA of their employer.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
wrote:
>>> That is correct from my reading of the Apache page as well.
>>> I think that your definition of committer and contributor is identical to Apache's.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2016 3:57 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I believe Pierre-Luc’s explanation is correct, and that we may have slightly
different definitions of contributor and committer.  Generally, we define a contributor, we
are referring to anyone (committer, PMC member, any person in the world) who contributes code,
documentation, etc to the project.  We define a committer as a contributor who demonstrated
a strong and sustained commitment to the project.  In recognition of this commitment, committers
are granted the right to commit changes to the project’s public repositories.  Execution
of an ICLA and CCLA are required in order for someone to become an Apache CloudStack committer.
>>>>
>>>> IANAL, but my understanding is that any individual can contribute to an Apache
project without signing an ICLA/CCLA because a committer with one in place will perform commit
to the repository.  The act of the individual giving code to the project and a committer reviewing
and committing it to the repository qualifies as rights assignment under by the ASL.  Since
execution of an ICLA/CCLA is a prerequisite for all Apache CloudStack committers and Apache
secures our repositories to only allow committers read/write access, rights assignment under
the ASL for our repositories is properly enforced/managed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -John
>>>>
>>>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion891@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ron,
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
>>>>> for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
>>>>> else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can
be a
>>>>> contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider
as a
>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
>>>>>> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
>>>>>> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
to
>>>>>> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email)
an
>>>>>> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
>>>>>> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual
property
>>>>>> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the
project
>>>>>> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future
time.
>>>>>> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
>>>>>> commit rights to an ASF project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
>>>>>> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
>>>>>> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part
of an
>>>>>> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the
need
>>>>>> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover
any
>>>>>> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing
the
>>>>>> CCLA."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign
of
>>>>>> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but
it is
>>>>>> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
>>>>>> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
>>>>>> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This
removes
>>>>>> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
>>>>>> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is
a simple
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
>>>>>> is what we did at OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ron Wheeler
>>> President
>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102


-- 
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102


Mime
View raw message