www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Petro <apetro.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: on clear intent sufficient to accept contributions
Date Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:01:19 GMT
Hi again,

There's a desire to secure a "canonical position" from Apache
<https://groups.google.com/a/apereo.org/d/msg/licensing-discuss/c1puG3RKZcA/t0OG_DdAAwAJ>
wrt the necessity of securing ICLAs from contributors rather than only from
committers, beyond my amateur analysis, this legal-discuss@ list thread,
and LEGAL-156
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156?focusedCommentId=13554864&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13554864>
.

Is there a viable path to such a canonical position? Ought I to open a
LEGAL JIRA issue requesting this?

Kind regards,

Andrew


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 :).
>>
>
> Noting, as it relates to the subject, clause 5 of Apache License 2.0:
>
> *5. Submission of Contributions*. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
> any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You
> to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License,
> without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above,
> nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license
> agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
>
> Hen
>

Mime
View raw message