www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Clarifying CCLA as an optional document
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:16:14 GMT
The issue that concerns the ASF occurs when an employee, who has assigned his or her intellectual
property rights to a corporation, contributes to a project, and later, the corporation decides
that it did not want to make that contribution. In that case, the corporation could notify
the ASF and demand that the offending contribution be removed from ASF. The ASF would comply,
possibly leaving the project in trouble (pulling releases, reimplementing the functionality
of the offending contribution, etc.).

Having signed CCLAs from corporations helps avoid the above scenario. Therefore, the PMC should
make a judgement before accepting contributions from individuals that they know are owned
by a corporation. 

The process by which a PMC makes a judgement call as to whether or not a contribution is owned
by a corporation and thus subject to a grant or CCLA is documented as IP Clearance.

Craig

On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> I guess the main issue is that the ASF expects and requires an iCLA
> for all committers; it is a pre-requisite for getting commit privs.
> The CCLA is optional and the ASF itself makes no determination
> on whether a corp or an individual requires one; the most typical
> use-case are those when employees have agreements which state
> that, for example, all IP developed by an employee (whether on their
> own time or not) is property of the corp, or anything developed on
> a work computer is property of the corp, etc...
> 
> Maybe something to that effect would also go a long way in providing
> some more clarity.
> 
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> 
>> I seem to receive enquiries about the CCLA a number of times a year. I'm sure others
also get these enquiries. In the majority of these cases I point out that the CCLA is optional
but the iCLA is required (for committers). Occasionally my assurance is not sufficient (me
being a non-lawyer and all that).
>> 
>> It would be good to have an official statement to point to. With that in mind, does
anyone object to me making the following edit to http://www.apache.org/licenses/ Specifically,
I've added the sentence "The submission of a Corporate CLA is optional." all other text is
unchanged.
>> 
>> "For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache project, a Corporate
CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual property via the corporation, that may
have been assigned as part of an employment agreement. The submission of a Corporate CLA is
optional. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need for every developer to sign their
own CLA as an individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation
signing the CCLA."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Senior Technology Evangelist
>> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
>> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 

Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


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


Mime
View raw message