incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:49:28 GMT
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Under another Apache project, Apache Camel, the JIRA system allows
> contributions of code and changelists, which requires a box be checked
> that says the contribution is made under the terms and policies, etc.
> This is done on a per-contribution basis, and doesn't require a CLA
> from the contributor.  Said contribution would then need to actually
> be applied by a CLA-submitted committer.
>

And could be vetoed by a CLA-submitted committer, if he or she thought
the code contribution required a CLA.

The size of the patch is not the only issue.  Remember, I can take a
2000 line contribution and break it into 200 ten-line patches, if I
really cared to,

So I don't think we can give an answer set in stone.  We need to look
at reach case and see if it is reasonable, whether it passes the
"sniff test".

And remember, the project, Apache and our users are never worse off
for having an additional iCLA on file.

-Rob

> Don
>

Mime
View raw message