incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:19:30 GMT
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke <> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 20:11:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis.  Personally, I don't
>> >> have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has
>> >> clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2.  But a patch of
>> >> 10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance?
>> >
>> > I wasn't mentioning doubted provenance. I'm talking about cases where
>> > the author clearly states that he owns the copyright and contributes the
>> > work under AL2.
>> >
>> If someone hands me a check for $10 and has an illegible signature on
>> it, I might let that pass.  But if someone gives me a check for $10000
>> I would probably insist on a legible signature.
> If the illegible signature is the one deposited with the bank, insisting
> on a legible signature wouldn't help much, to the contrary, you might
> not get your money.

But if the illegible signature was not authorized, then I get no
money, plus a fine from my bank when the check is returned as "not
collectable".  Not sure if it is the same in Germany...

>> >> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for
>> >> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
>> >> ways to vote them in as Committers.  If someone is making many
>> >> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as
>> >> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
>> >
>> > I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who does
>> > not want to get involved too deeply with the project and does not want
>> > to sign a CLA, yet is willing to contribute his work.
>> You know that these are two different things, yes?
> Yes.
>> Someone can sign
>> the iCLA but not become a committer and so not have any deeper
>> commitment to participate in the project.
>> Anyhow, if this did come up, I'd try to understand why the person was
>> unwilling to sign the iCLA. Not as a debate or an argument, but to
>> hear their concerns.  We might be able to persuade them.  But if not,
>> then it is likely that we would need to decline the contribution.
> 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 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?


>  Eike
> --
>  PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>  Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD

View raw message