On Mar 2, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Creating a new CCLA each time the contact wants to add an addendum
> is a very bad idea -- it means we have to have the entire text
> approved by Day legal, again, and have two officers of the company
> sign it. I am sure that other companies have similar restrictions
> on IP licensing. That is why the CCLA was designed for addendums
> to simply be communicated (in any written fashion) to the ASF.
>
A coupla of things:
1. I feel that it is inappropriate for any ASF member to
recommend a legally appropriate course of action for the
ASF when it involves their employer. Are you speaking
as a Day employee or as an ASF member in the above?
The use of "we" implies as a Day employee. But other
statements are being made, imo, as someone who helped
craft the CCLA and thus, has the expectation of ASF
influence... This conflict confuses the issue.
2. Where is it expressly stated that addendums can be
communicated "in any written fashion"?
3. I am having a hard time following the logic that says
a. We should not bother with ensuring it is signed
because if it's not official, people will catch
it and complain. If this is the case, why have
anyone sign one in the 1st place?
b. That a signed copy of an addendum "means nothing"
when we say that a signed copy of the "original"
means we trust things forever and henceforth :)
Yes, of course, I know that the existence of a CCLA itself
provides such protection...
In any case, no other entity has had problems with providing
updates and addendums as signed docs. In fact, it's moot
since Day itself did so. If entities do have problems,
then it's something that we should address, but so far no
one has. It's a simple request and it provides some small level
of IP tracking protection and no one has raised issues
with it (it's noteworthy that David raised none at all).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
|