incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:54:39 GMT
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on file
> to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
> software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.  A
> CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
> permission to use specific software created by the company. If the company
> is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is being
> contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving the
> contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
> would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
> their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
> from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software grant
> is typically the best way to do it.

I concur.

Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
(Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
Grant would be appreciated.

If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
problem?

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message