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
ignorance:

	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]:

[snip]
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  
decide.
[/snip]

	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 (?).

	Thanks,

		Michael.

[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


Mime
View raw message