Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of cliffschmidt@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.199 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=nCs4HWgRMT24R1Q9zwWsZy1rdvJMJtSMz+I1PTVnZ061ZzkZB6A+OjDeTP3Z0ReqTZmwzK73XBptAuq3csgdr0nMHoGDrXRXo5dgRPc3b7Rdkk5QJuqhKFTwtlYcm10/p6vX5J87tYx0ASNErDS86LOxXampqj/R5BGW4SNce9E=
Message-ID: <c5e632550510110905j7b70da39q1fbb9cc6379f6c04@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:05:21 -0400
From: Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com>
To: Phil Steitz <psteitz@apache.org>
Subject: Re: CLA / CCLA questions
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <434BC43D.5020803@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <434BC43D.5020803@apache.org>

On 10/11/05, Phil Steitz <psteitz@apache.org> wrote:
> The following is forwarded (with permission) from someone who has
> recently been voted in as a Jakarta Commons committer.  I would
> appreciate some help responding correctly to his questions.

sure -- see below

Cliff

> Thanks in advance.
>
> Phil
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regarding help: I have difficulties to grasp the patent related point 3
> of the ICLA. Especially the second half regarding the consequences. I
> work for asmall company and we do not file patents at all. As I
> understand currently,the text simply means, that all patent licenses
> granted by usimmediately get invalid if somebody starts a patent
> lawsuite based on my contributions.

That's basically right -- not a bad summary -- however, it sounds like
it is not applicable if the contributor does not hold nor plan to
apply for any patents.

>
> Reading point 4 I am also not sure, if I need the CCLA. Fact is, that
> most code (patches/contributions) for commons is developed being at work
> i.e. the code itself is intellectual property of my employer. I
> currently have a verbal agreement for contributions. AFAICS this would
> be enough, but I should made my employer better aware of the fact, that
> this agreement will turn into a more legal state with signing me the ICLA=
.

If the IP is owned by the employer, we need to get the employer to
sign a cCLA.  Verbal agreements have many flaws, including often
having far less detail than necessary about what is really being
agreed to.  Requiring the employer to sign a cCLA makes it much more
likely they will really understand what they are agreeing to license
and under what terms.

Cliff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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