www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Meeks <michael.me...@novell.com>
Subject code without an iCLA ...
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:13:03 GMT
Hi guys,

	I've been trying to understand this for a while, and am (of course)
rather new to the Apache Way of doing things, so please bear with my

	I read the "ICLA paragraph 7" thread in the archive, and was curious at
the lack of a black & white conclusion. To try to help crystallise that,
my question is:

	"is signing an iCLA required for any non-trivial
	 code contribution to an ASF project ?"

	It seems there are two parts to this; it seems from [1]:

From: Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:28:48 GMT
Right. Small amounts of contributions are allowed without an ICLA.
IMHO 2000 lines of code is borderline for a submission without an  
ICLA. Best to discuss on your project mail list and have the project  

	That such submissions are indeed possible.

	Is it the background here that thousand-line contributions are
	viewed as non-interesting from a (C) perspective. Or is it the
	case that ASF is willing to tolerate such chunks of code it
	does not own[2] ? perhaps dependent on the project.

	A clear answer to the above would help me understand the rational
better here.

	I had -thought- that an iCLA would be required for everything
non-trivial since the AL2 has no plus, or future version language, nor a
license steward. That (it seems to me) necessitates owning[2] the rights
to the entire codebase to allow future re-licensing to AL3 etc.

	How can that future re-licensing be achieved if multiple thousand-line
parts of the code are not owned[2] by ASF ?

	Presumably this issue was dealt with when the AL2 was promulgated and
projects for which no iCLAs were signed (back in the day) had to get
upgraded to it (?).



[1] - http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201108.mbox/%3CC23DED33-C4D1-454B-9A52-55281A4144F9@oracle.com%3E
[2] - I use 'own' loosely for an ownership-like right: you know,
      perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide blah blah license is tantamount
      to ownership - presumably there is a 'correct' term for this
      ownership-like-right that is simple & clear, but I don't know what
      it is yet.
 michael.meeks@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

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

View raw message