www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: using the apache cla for another project
Date Tue, 22 Jul 2014 05:38:48 GMT
A few observations:

- Fundamentally, this is a question for your governance to ask
themselves, and consider against your current bylaws.  If I were in a
situation like this, I would probably consider that changing to release
under MIT would still be a sufficient public good.

- Why would you want to relicense under something besides the Apache
License anyway, once you've started with the Apache License?  I.e. do
you have a specific concern that's been raised and you're considering,
or is this just a hypothetical question?  (If so, I'd recommend focusing
on current work rather than future hypotheticals).

- If you're really concerned about this, then simply rewrite that
portion of the CLA, and use that.  Just be upfront in the documentation
about the difference; I don't think that small a difference if clearly
laid out would be a significant barrier to contributors. (Just IMO).

Good luck!

- Shane

On 7/17/14 9:23 AM, Esteve Fernandez wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm an Apache Thrift PMC member and also work for the Open Source
> Robotics Foundation (http://osrfoundation.org/), where we're thinking
> of adopting a CLA model for contributions. Given that at the OSRF we
> already release our code under the Apache 2.0 license and that we're a
> nonprofit and public organization like the Apache Software Foundation,
> we thought of following a similar approach to contributions. We'd like
> to use the same CLAs because of the ASF approach to contributions is
> widely accepted in the opensource world, which would help us lower the
> barrier to contribute. However we have a question about the preface
> and the overall text of the ICLA, namely this part:
> "You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your
> present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. In
> return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that
> is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit
> status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution. Except
> for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of
> software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title,
> and interest in and to Your Contributions."
> does this mean that if we (OSRF) use the same wording as the ASF ICLA
> for our CLA, we can only relicense a contribution as long as it's
> under another opensource license? (i.e. consistent with our nonprofit
> and public status) We're happy with the Apache 2.0 license, but we
> wonder if at some point we want to use a different opensource license
> (e.g. MIT, Clear BSD, etc.) we won't be able to do so for
> contributions.
> Thanks.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

View raw message