Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
In-Reply-To: <09C53157-8E3B-477F-A3FF-90EC854B6E2D@gbiv.com>
References: <eb7e2190702270243y5f23d683g5ec73f7cc93de8d3@mail.gmail.com>
 <778FA820-7AB4-465D-9E78-C3A06190C744@apache.org>
 <eb7e2190703010250m479e458ek959d49def76e35f6@mail.gmail.com>
 <09C53157-8E3B-477F-A3FF-90EC854B6E2D@gbiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <F0F5368A-611F-4E0A-BA83-023B522D3F74@jaguNET.com>
Cc: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>,
	David Nuescheler <david.nuescheler@day.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: Addendum to CCLA of Day Management
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:29:19 -0500
To: Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>


On Mar 2, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>> On 2/27/07, Jim Jagielski <jim@apache.org> wrote:
>>> David, no problem. We just need You to fill out another CCLA
>>> and note changes and mark the CCLA as an addendum to the one
>>> currently on file. You can FAX it to us (410-803-2258) or
>>> Email a scanned copy of the signed-and-filled-out CCLA
>>> to secretary@apache.org *and* legal-archive@apache.org.
>
> That doesn't make any sense.  The CCLA is designed to be updated by
> the point of contact (David) -- all he has to do is send the ASF
> an email message to do so.  The legality and signatures to that effect
> have already been established by the original CCLA.
>
> 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.
>

Certainly we need to ensure that the entity/person
making the changes is legally entitled to do so.
With Email so easy to spoof, assuming it's not GPG signed,
we have no guarantee that David is David.

I do not interpret such updates as "submissions" as defined
in 1. Definitions. So since this is a change to a legal
document between 2 parties, it's not unreasonable, imo,
to ensure that there is clear tracking of those changes.


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