www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Esteve Fernandez <est...@apache.org>
Subject Re: using the apache cla for another project
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:33:13 GMT
Thank you both.

Is the ASF policy to require committers to sign a the CLA just a
convenience to have them on file before assigning an ID or is there a legal
reason for that? Given that OSRF uses the same license as ASF and has
similar goals, we try to mimic as much of its process as we can so
contributors familiar with ASF have it easier to submit contributions.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:

> Jim Jagielski summarized the Apache ICLA policy as follows:
> > Once a person receives commit privs, however, it is ASF policy that they
> have
> > a signed iCLA on file.
>
> Perhaps I'm being too simple about it, but I've always viewed the Apache
> ICLA as primarily an application for an Apache contributor ID that allows
> the named individual to post to Apache repositories and websites. That's
> all
> the Apache secretary does when he processes those ICLAs. The secretary
> assigns an Apache ID and files the ICLA in our records. End of story. There
> is, at that moment, no contribution to consider licensing, no provenance to
> verify.
>
> The Apache ICLA says also, in essence, "everything I subsequently
> contribute
> is for ASF to use for whatever." It is perhaps a shorthand way of applying
> the notice "Licensed under Apache License 2.0" to every one of the
> copyrighted works posted by that contributor under that ID to any Apache
> repository. It sort of accomplishes the same goal, but I don't call the
> ICLA
> a license.
>
> If a project uses a CLA-like procedure to register contributors, that's a
> good thing, but you needn't call it a C(License)A. Instead you can call it
> a
> CA or an "Account Agreement" (AA). You can make it simply an agreement to
> obey your posted Contribution Policy.
>
> That's how I sign up for social network accounts where I'm free to post all
> sorts of copyrighted works. That's what I thought that OpenMRS does when it
> gives people like me accounts on its website. At OpenMRS I agreed to the
> posted policy that "everything I contribute is under CC-BY, except code
> which is under MPL 2.0 HD." That is because of the posted OpenMRS
> Contribution Policy, not because it says so explicitly in some Contributor
> License Agreement I signed.
>
> I didn't need a CLA in any of the other organizations to which I
> contribute.
> But I did easily sign up for an ID everywhere. And I agreed to obey their
> posted contribution policies.
>
> "License In == License Out" takes care of the rest.
>
> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:54 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; Michael Downey
> Subject: Re: using the apache cla for another project
>
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message