www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 22:08:17 GMT
Herewith some more edits. Specifically, I changed "the code that they contribute is theirs
to license" to "they have the right to contribute". And other editorial and grammatical changes.
Change commas to semicolons, change between to among, etc. And a suggestion to contact their
own company's counsel for answers to questions not addressed here.

A CCLA is only required if contributors' employment situation necessitates that a CCLA be
signed. See section 4 of the ICLA for details.

Committers must sign an ICLA. They make an individual claim that they have the right to contribute.
Reviewing their ICLA against their employer's ownership interests, applicable state and national
law, and specific aspects of their employment contract and business policies will reveal that
they can or cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular
project they are committing in.

The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/ICLA signer may use to eliminate all of the
ambiguity among all these conflicting laws, contracts, policies and job assignments. The Apache
Software Foundation has never required it. Many committers are confident of their individual
representations under the ICLA, and many other committers find it reassuring that their company
has backed up their own ICLA with this umbrella document.

It is the ICLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy call for many
committers employed in the IT/Software industry. If there are any questions as to whether
a CCLA is required, committers are encouraged to consult their employers' counsel.

Finally, see section 8 of the ICLA, which requires signers to notify the Foundation when their
status changes in ways that may require this to be reassessed.

Craig

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> I've pushed this out to the FAQ, lightly edited:
> 
> http://www.staging.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#are-contributors-required-to-sign-a-ccla
> 
> Changes:
> 
> 1) Expanded the original question
> 
> 2) Fixed a typo "employent" and reworded first sentence
> 
> 3) Changed CLA to ICLA for clarity
> 
> 4) Added mentions of sections 4 and 8 of the ICLA where additional
> clarifications can be found.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite correct
>>> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so".  "if your employent
>>> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
>>> 
>>> Committers must sign a CLA.  They make an individual claim that the code that
>>> they contribute is their's to license.  Reviewing their CLA against their employer's
>>> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific aspects
of
>>> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or
>>> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular
>>> project they are committing in.
>>> 
>>> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
>>> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws, contracts,
>>> policies and job assignments.  We've never required it, many committers
>>> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many other
>>> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own
>>> CLA with this umbrella document.
>>> 
>>> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy
call
>>> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rvesse@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
>>> Good suggestion
>>> 
>>> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your employer requires
so".  It would need to cover the fact that many employment contracts give copyright and IP
of work done on employer time (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA
would be desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside employer time.
 Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP
law e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
>>> 
>>> Rob
>>> 
>>> From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
>>> Reply-To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
>>> To: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
>>> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
>>> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
>>> 
>>> * Is the CCLA required?
>>> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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


Mime
View raw message