www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: on clear intent sufficient to accept contributions
Date Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:36:59 GMT
It sounds like a request for legal advice - which this list isn't for. i.e.
I don't see that there's a 'canonical position' that can exist. There's how
we do things, but that's just a policy we've chosen for our development.


Stating my understanding of the Apache policy - Apache requires ICLAs of
its committers, uses ICLAs or a software license (
https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) for exceptional
contributions from contributors and generally relies on clause 5 of the
Apache License 2.0 for other contributions from contributors.


On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Petro <apetro.lists@gmail.com>

> 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

View raw message