www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: using the apache cla for another project
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:54:10 GMT
Since code is under the ALv2, there is an implied and explicit CLA
in that license itself; so with the concept of License In == License Out,
we do not require that all contributors sign an iCLA.

Once a person receives commit privs, however, it is ASF policy that
they have a signed iCLA on file.

> On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Esteve Fernandez <esteve@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Thank you all for your responses.
> 
> We're finally going to put the CLA in place and start requiring contributors to sign
it. However, we at OSRF wondered why ASF only requires committers to sign the CLA, but not
external contributors.
> 
> We see that it's easier for contributors to submit contributions by not making them sign
the CLA and also that it's covered by clause 5 of the Apache 2 license. So, doesn't that clause
also cover contributions made by committers? We want to make our contributors' lifes easier
too, so if we can only require committers to sign the CLA, that'd be make it all much simpler.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Esteve Fernandez wrote:
> > ....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.
> 
> Using a CLA for contributions like Apache does is one model. Directly relying on OSI-approved
FOSS licenses for contributions from known contributors is another, easier way.
> 
> In OpenMRS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that distributes open source medical records software
around the world, we intend to accept almost any FOSS-licensed contribution without using
a CLA. We will rely on FOSS "license compatibility" and a NOTICE file to ensure that the software
aggregations we distribute can actually be used. For compatibility analysis, we rely on OSI,
FSF and Creative Commons for their advice rather than publishing our own third party license
policies.
> 
> Please see attached. Your feedback is welcomed.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esteve Fernandez [mailto:esteve@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:23 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: using the apache cla for another project
> 
> 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
> 


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


Mime
View raw message