www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Clarifying CCLA as an optional document
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:14:38 GMT
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Craig L Russell
<craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 9:11 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 20 March 2014 15:16, Craig L Russell <craig.russell@oracle.com> 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.).
>>
>> I thought the ICLA was sufficient on its own?
>>
>> Section 4 explicitly says that the contributor asserts that they are
>> able to make grant, possibly in conjunction with a CCLA.
>> If they don't provide a CCLA I don't see why it should affect the ASF.
>
> I refer above to a case where the employee asserts that they have rights that they in
fact do not have. This should be a very rare case. If the corporation later claims ownership
of IP, the ASF will certainly not go to court to defend itself but would remove the offending
code. And blaming the employee doesn't change anything. The project is still in trouble.
>

Exactly.  This is true on the patent side of the license as well,
perhaps more so, since patents tend to be assigned to the
corporations.  Having the CCLA reduces risk for our users.

So I'd hesitate to say that the CCLA is "optional".  Sure, there are
many cases where it is not needed.  But it should always welcome and
in some cases I think we should really be asking for it.

Or maybe say it is "optional" for becoming a Committer, but in some
cases a CCLA will be required before accepting a specific code
contribution.

-Rob

> Craig
>>
>> If it does affect the ASF if there is no CCLA then perhaps the ICLA
>> needs updating.
>>
>>> 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
>

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


Mime
View raw message