www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From j.@jmason.org (Justin Mason)
Subject Re: Plans for Apache Licensing Policy
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:13:22 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Justin Erenkrantz writes:
> --On October 6, 2005 12:35:13 PM +0000 Cliff Schmidt 
> <cliffschmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 4. What exactly is a committer supposed to do when offered a patch?
> >      (e.g. get explicit confirmation on the mailing
> >       list that contributor acknowledges that they
> >       are licensing their IP under AL2 and that they
> >       do not work for an employer who has claims on
> >       the IP they generate -- might be simpler to put
> >       a statement like this on a "Terms of Use" page
> >       and just have a committer ask the contributor
> >       to acknowledge they agree to those terms.)
> 
> I think the mere act of submitting the patches on our public lists should 
> indicate the acceptance of our terms (esp. given the wording in ALv2).  I 
> think it's really impractical to have someone submit a patch and then 
> reply, "Are you sure you meant to post it?"

FWIW, it's worth noting that a mailing-list-based workflow for
contributions isn't standard ASF-wide; we in SpamAssassin take an
alternative approach, since our "contribution workflow" is Bugzilla-based
instead -- in other words contributions are submitted as attachments to
bugs on our bugzilla.

Accordingly, our Bugzilla has text on the login page detailing the
contribution terms, and noting that attaching a file to a bugzilla bug is
considered a contribution under those terms.  We then require patches to
be contributed via attachments on bugzilla, not via mail.

We've only ever had one complaint about this.

Worth noting that we've received contributions of code from people who
are not subscribers to the dev list, so a dev-list welcome text
wouldn't help there.

We also seek signed, faxed/mailed CLAs for more "substantial"
contributions, where "substantial" is really a matter of taste. That
causes a lot of complaints, geeks hate paper ;)  

We've extended our Bugzilla to track which users have a CLA on file, to
track that.

Note that this means we have a set of contributors with CLAs on file who
are not committers.

> 5. What info should be in commit log for non-committer IP?
>      (e.g. msgid of contributor acknowledging terms)

Good question.  What to do for the paper-CLA or bugzilla-clickthrough
case?

> The rest of your guidelines look fine to me.
> Thanks for taking this on.  -- justin

ditto!

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFDRXdSMJF5cimLx9ARAokGAJ0ZGpGAZ+5UmwbAaESdPHzwCHMWSgCcDsqc
eujyhKDwb9EMazhMr4sZuT4=
=XJsY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message