www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Clarifying CCLA as an optional document
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 05:34:13 GMT
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
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt>(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

Mime
View raw message