Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Subject: Re: Clarifying CCLA as an optional document
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A06B629-2D97-436F-A7D9-D2BB6274440B@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:06:17 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1D2367CD-C399-40BC-A640-4FF412250D31@gbiv.com>
References: 
 <CAKQbXgAS2JetEQuGLTvYdTftVM2R+tZnnUsfnVa1a1b6prAmTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D718E7C-2750-4E88-BB90-A0B5A26F2689@jaguNET.com>
 <4A06B629-2D97-436F-A7D9-D2BB6274440B@oracle.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org

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.).
>=20
> 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.=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Craig
>=20
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>=20
>> 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...
>>=20
>> Maybe something to that effect would also go a long way in providing
>> some more clarity.
>>=20
>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Ross Gardler =
<rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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).
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> "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."
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Senior Technology Evangelist
>>> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
>>> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>=20
>=20
> 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!
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>=20


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