Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABD8fLXjf0zoFZMGLxmO_dkJWFJcbLwYt0LDktSYy-7gVcaYeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EEE452.40907@apache.org>
	<CAFG6u8Hr__cDLuJWTwugzpwzjmmechpiHBP+PW--1i5uyCGRzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABD8fLXjf0zoFZMGLxmO_dkJWFJcbLwYt0LDktSYy-7gVcaYeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:04:20 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAAS6=7hQ8b1HC9vy6RPDLcKqrd8yphJRJqMWxn5eN=bcJYBK_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Comcast questions re: CCLA
From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: "Doogan, Melissa" <Melissa_Doogan@comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another way to phrase it is that the ICLA effectively gives the
> Foundation what we need. The CCLA is more about a company stating the
> employee has the right to contribute, but *we* don't really need a
> CCLA. The ICLA already asserts the employee has the right (through
> whatever employer/employee relationship or contract). The CCLA is more
> about corporations clarifying/formalizing that relationship for
> themselves and their employees.

Or put another way...

The boilerplate intellectual property agreements that software developers must
typically sign as terms of their employment are so draconian that it's often
impossible to participate in open source without violating them.  By avoiding
the CCLA and ensuring that the employee is perpetually in breach of their
contract, the employer preserves maximum leverage over their employee in the
event of a dispute.

IANAL, etc.

Marvin Humphrey

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