incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffu...@tutopia.com>
Subject Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 19:02:38 GMT


--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
..
> >
> > There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it
> > philosophical conception, due to history especially
> > not if it's for OOo. If contributions are welcome
> > only under iCLA you probably won't see them
> > showing up here.
> >
>

I agree: none of the projects I usually participate in
ask for signatures. The few that require them (NetBSD
IIRC) only ask for committers to accept a CLA.

OpenOffice is probably a special case wrt patents and
that's a special strength behind the Apache License so
I think it's good in case of big contributions (like
IBM's) to have such a document but otherwise I don't
think it's standard practice on Apache to ask for
signatures for small contributions.
 
> I sometimes wonder if we'd have greater acceptance of the
> iCLA if we called it something else, a name that did not
> include "CLA" in it?
>

It looks like SUN's developer agreement left deep scars
in the community. It's common practice to assume that
developers know and accept the license of the code they
are contributing to. What I've seen in other list (tag
all patches and postings with licenses) is rather
weird.
 
Pedro. 

Mime
View raw message