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 Fri, 21 Mar 2014 01:40:25 GMT
Well, we're dealing in hypotheticals here. You would know better that I whether there was ever
a case similar to this.

If a corporation came to Apache with a claim that an employee went outside company policy
and committed code that the company considered a significant company asset, I believe that
shortly after receiving the complaint, Apache would "buckle". 

And how much of Apache resources would you be willing to spend defending such a claim in court?

But that's all I have to say.

Craig

On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Sorry, that simply isn't true as a general case.  Corporations cannot
> deny the acts of their own employees, nor would we simply buckle under
> a claim that code be pulled.  The corporation is responsible for
> policing its own employees.  We would only pull the code if there
> is no evidence whatsoever that the corporation supported the
> contribution at the time it was contributed.
> 
> Our contribution policies are quite clear and well known.  The CCLA
> just provides a written record of the corporate decisions in a place
> that isn't likely to disappear.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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