www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: on clear intent sufficient to accept contributions
Date Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:52:49 GMT
On 29 June 2016 at 16:32, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a practical matter, I think that you should use some judgement about how significant
the pull request is.  If it is large enough or clever enough to be hard to replicate you should
probably ask for a more formal record of agreement to the license.

Agree on "large" or "clever" being triggers.

Also an ICLA is good to clarify if it could be unclear if the
contribution is the sole work of the contributor (and that she has the
right to contribute it) or is code imported from "somewhere" (e.g.
obvious code style differences).

With a signed ICLA/CCLA we have the legal backing that the named
contributor claimed to have the rights to contribute under the Apache
License - a semi-anonymous GitHub user "coder42" is a bit more dubious
if questions are later raised about Intellectual Property rights.

So as a rough guide, a typical small patch/pull request is easy,
someone adding a couple of brand new classes/files should raise
warning signs and new modules/folders should be require ICLA. If the
code looks like a mixed ragbag, ask for further provenance, an ICLA
and code style cleanup :).

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

View raw message