Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 11211 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2005 12:14:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Mar 2005 12:14:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 58807 invoked by uid 500); 25 Mar 2005 12:14:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 58643 invoked by uid 500); 25 Mar 2005 12:14:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 58630 invoked by uid 99); 25 Mar 2005 12:14:04 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from 60.Red-213-97-200.pooles.rima-tde.net (HELO marlow.intranet.hisitech.com) (213.97.200.60) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:14:00 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marlow.intranet.hisitech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD68837405E for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:13:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: RE: Corporate Contributions From: Santiago Gala To: legal-discuss@apache.org In-Reply-To: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0E752617@ussjex01.amer.bea.com> References: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0E752617@ussjex01.amer.bea.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-/347Ja339nkACfwrqhXT" Organization: Apache Software Foundation Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:13:52 +0100 Message-Id: <1111752832.25211.55.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --=-/347Ja339nkACfwrqhXT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 24-03-2005 a las 16:43 -0800, Jim Barnett escribi=C3=B3: (...snip...) > It may be more likely that a UK employee will own the contributions he > or she develops due to more pro-Employee invention ownership laws, > that > increased likelihood of a "clean" contribution still does not address > the root question: How does the ASF know that an employee's > contribution is really "clean" in the absence of a CCLA from his or > her > employer? Even under UK law the question of whether the employee > worked > exclusively on his or her own time using his or her own resources > determines whether the employer or employee owns the contribution. Basically we trust the signed ICLA we receive. Without further knowledge, and having into account that Open Source work is done "in the agora", as Bill said. I think we have a pretty good case, with public archives of any and each contribution that the employer can spot and tell us there's something wrong. It the IP was truly relevant to their business line, they better have a good excuse why they were not able to do any "corporate intelligence" around core IP, specially in cases where contributions are continued during several years. The "submarine" or "unaware" cases are far more probable in code contributions, which is why we ask for a CCLA for those. Regards --=20 Santiago Gala High Sierra Technology, SLU --=20 VP and Chair, Apache Portals (http://portals.apache.org) Apache Software Foundation --=-/347Ja339nkACfwrqhXT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCRACAZAeG2a2/nhoRAhwbAJ4+QJYI+IIv7LS6wsNOps7/4vHG3ACfX3+f qVpLoUtIn0yX8OO3p6Nl5Z4= =IGDX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-/347Ja339nkACfwrqhXT--