Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.221.119 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=DANsLp0+g1z/6yt68QMERq9sfk3EeDKfGMtiij5uzlEh5pshzXAc7R4hpH9uw0qvA1
         gqQXxU1MZvZXfy6fbkDmIMcCPd0kaBuOMvPkXbEgM7dD93eKsdsTt7NKoZKJjLp0dP7G
         pOib6RvyXX3a/GDfdEBxJAk+Eq/FEkhJLrF9U=
Message-ID: <49DAA93C.6020102@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:15:40 -0400
From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: CLA vs Grant
References: <2d12b2f00904050822s63c63517lf7a77f339b606bb6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5c902b9e0904050941hb5cabxdb0332910f5a8438@mail.gmail.com>
	 <A8154B39-DE2A-40AA-8A50-9E8F0A161053@gbiv.com>
 <3d4032300904060834w4b28133dhc8ef59946dc33e9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3d4032300904060834w4b28133dhc8ef59946dc33e9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Apr 5, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> If someone has a signed CLA on file (but is not a committer), does
>>>> that make it unnecessary to file a software grant for each large
>>>> contribution?
>>>>
>>>> I think it does, but want to get consensus.
>>>>         
>>> IMO, it's not required, but I believe they should still file a grant
>>> for large independent software chunks which were not developed at ASF.
>>>  I like belt and suspenders.  =P  -- justin
>>>       
>> That doesn't actually help us.  An argument can be made that if we
>> require both than we must have some belief that the one is not
>> sufficient, which can then be used against us if there is only a CLA.
>>
>> We don't need both so we don't require both.  We aren't going to
>> complain if we receive both, but we don't require both.
>>     
>
> If there is a large contribution (and, no, I don't have a precise
> definition for "large"), I would prefer to see our IP clearance rules
> followed:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>
> Two concrete cases just for illustration purposes: if it turns out
> that the code was developed all by a single individual and is "clean",
> then I see no need for an additional grant.  If, however, there is any
> question as to whether a person's employer may have the right to make
> a claim of ownership against such software, I would encourage that
> author to work this out with their employer, possibly resulting in a
> grant.
>
>   
The case that led to this question is code that an individual has 
attached to a JIRA patch and he
has confirmed it is his own code.  He has also confirmed that he has 
rights to contribute the code and has signed a CLA.
The contribution consists of 11 java classes, all less than 150 lines in 
length, all consisting of implementations of interfaces defined in 
commons-math.

Based on the first concrete case above, I conclude that a grant is not 
required in this case.

Phil

>> ....Roy
>>     
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org