db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: CLA and ICLA policy clarified
Date Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:13:25 GMT
Jean T. Anderson wrote:

>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>Last week at ApacheCon, I attended most of Cliff Schmidt's sessions on
>>intellectual property issues. Cliff is the ASF's vice president for
>>legal affairs. Cliff clarified that ICLAs are only needed for
>>committers. Similarly, a company's CLA only needs to cover its
>>committers. According to Cliff, we don't need ICLA/CLA coverage for
>>contributors who aren't committers.
>>It seems to me that Derby's policy is stricter than this. As I recall,
>>we require ICLA/CLA coverage for all contributors, regardless of whether
>>they are committers. Why is Derby's policy stricter than general ASF
>I knew I was going to regret flying out early and missing those final
>legal sessions.
>An FAQ on ICLAs is at http://db.apache.org/derby/faq.html#derby_icla .
>http://www.apache.org/licenses/ says in the section titled "Contributor
>License Agreements":
>"The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
>to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via snailmail or fax)
>an Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA) [PDF form]. 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 CLA is required to be on file
>before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project."
>So, the stated policy is the ICLA is *desired* for contributors and
>*required* for committers.
>Apache projects decide what contribution is "big enough" to require an
>ICLA, and that bar varies quite a bit from one project to the next. I
>seem to recall that small Derby contributions have not been held up by
>lack of an ICLA. I'll look for an example of that if it's interesting.
> -jean
Thanks, Jean, I think that clears it up. No need to do further 
archaeology here. I'm happy to leave the definition of "small" to the 
good sense of our committers.


View raw message