www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:20:56 GMT
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> > At oo, everyone had to sign away their firstborn to Sun, but a mere
>> > license grant raises hackles about red tape? Sigh.
>> >
>
> Andy Brown responded:
>> Sad but true.  You should have seen some of the messages post in the
>> LibreOffice list back when they were invited to join Apache.
>
>
> I don't know which Apache list to refer this to, but I'm left curious. What were the
concerns?
>


I've observed four objections:

1) It is too much work, takes too much time/effort.  In response, I
explain that it is no more effort than printing out, signing and
returning a copyright assignment agreement when submitting a journal
article.

2) Another factor is the CLA that OpenOffice had under Sun, in various
forms, including the original version called the Joint Copyright
Assignment (JCA):

http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf

The asymmetry of that agreement has been a source of resentment for
many years.  Even the word "CLA" is treated with suspicion.  When this
comes up I show how the Apace iCLA is symmetric, that it gives rights
to Apache, but also to all users, etc.  It is not aggregating rights
in a single entity.

3) Another view is that GPLv3 (or any other license) is sufficient and
any agreements beyond that are redundant at best.   Presumably, the
counter argument is that the license is only sufficient for works
where the contributor has the necessary rights to attach an open
source license.

4) Finally, and probably related to 3 above, is the view that the iCLA
only benefits large corporations.  It reduces their risk for any
copyright infringement by putting the burden on the contributor to
ascertain their rights to contribute a work.  But why should the
individual contributor take on additional risk in order to benefit
large corporations who are just going to use their efforts? I'm not
sure I have the best counter argument for this.  I've been saying that
the contributor is in the best possible position to know whether their
contribution is original.

If you or others have better counter arguments for the above, it would
help us promote the iCLA.

-Rob

> We want to make the Apache Software Foundation an easy place to contribute. Bureaucracy
and bottlenecks are not our goals. If that is a perception out in the wild, we ought to understand
it and correct it.
>
> OTOH, if this is just an example of the usual grumbling and mumbling among zealots, we
can probably ignore it.
>
> /Larry
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
>> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 2:22 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
>>
>> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> > At oo, everyone had to sign away their firstborn to Sun, but a mere
>> > license grant raises hackles about red tape? Sigh.
>> >
>>
>> Sad but true.  You should have seen some of the messages post in the
>> LibreOffice list back when they were invited to join Apache.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message