www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Requiring CLAs for all contributions
Date Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:14:23 GMT
We're in the process of updating the site with the following wording (hope
to have it done by EOD):

"If you have significant contributions to make, or would like commit
access to the repo, make sure you have signed and submitted the Apache
CLA."


How's that?

On 10/16/12 1:04 PM, "Mark Thomas" <markt@apache.org> wrote:

>On 15/10/2012 11:31, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>>> While looking for the correct e-mail address to forward a security
>>> report to (that will follow in a second), I noticed that your website
>>> indicates that a CLA is required before a potential contributor is able
>>> to make a contribution.
>> 
>> See http://markmail.org/message/wfso24vyzvkgrlaz.
>
>I see lots of downsides to that policy and no upsides. The issues that
>concern me:
>- Unnecessary barriers to entry for new contributors
>- Legally unnecessary
>- Creates additional work for the secretary (not much now but if every
>TLP and podling did this it might)
>- Re-enforces the meme an iCLA is required to contribute at Apache
>
>I'm also don't believe that an iCLA is even desired for all
>contributions. The ALv2 provides all the legal cover we need and desire.
>
>I'm forwarding this to legal-discuss for comment.
>
>Mark
>


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


Mime
View raw message