www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Comcast questions re: CCLA
Date Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:36:57 GMT
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zwoop@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Legal,
>
> First, let me introduce Melissa Doogan, she represents Comcast and had a few
> questions and concerns regarding the CCLA that I feel would be best answered
> by legal. From what I can tell, one of her concerns revolve around the
> definition of what "Corporation" is with the CCLA (she can only sign off for
> Comcast itself, and not all of its affiliates). The second is a general
> question to better understand why (or why not) a corporation would want to
> sign the CCLA.

Having been through this with a number of corporations, I will suggest
that it is much easier if we start the conversation at a different
place.

Our policy since 2000 has been that every committer needs an ICLA.
Initially, this wasn't strictly enforced, but by September 2003 this
became a hard requirement -- to the point where we disabled accounts.

In addition to refusing to give committer accounts to individuals that
have not signed an ICLA, we have refused to accept modified ICLAs, or
ICLAs where the corporation name is substituted for, or added to the
individual's name.

I encourage Melissa to review section 4 of the ICLA and work with the
individual(s) who would be expected to sign the ICLA.  If, after
reading that section, she may very well determine that no CCLA is
required.

http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt

> Sincerely,
>
> -- Leif (VP Apache Traffic Server)

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message