www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Podling CLA/Grant advice
Date Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:48:16 GMT
Here is where I part company with both Roman and Chris.

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I’m not sure how an ICLA can cover past commits….
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I worked prior at company X…contributing to software A (not at Apache) and not
fully owned by company X.
>> I don’t have an ICLA on file at this point.
>> 
>> Company X owns my IP b/c I signed some agreement / transfer of assignment with them
>> 
>> Software A donated to Apache (by the originators of software A with or without an
SGA)
>> 
>> I decide I want to continue contributing to software A
>> I file an ICLA with Apache
>> 
>> That ICLA I do not believe licenses my past commits at company X

We usually get ICLAs from folks who are joining project A incubating at Apache. I feel that
this case does not require a separate SGA along with the ICLA. We can (and have) treat "present
and future" as meaning the current transfer of A to Apache and continuing work at Apache.
>> 
>> Do people think that the ICLA *should* in that case? To me…I don’t think it could
cover my commits at company X.
> 
> FWIW I'm with you on this one -- I don't think ICLA will cover past commits.
> 
> It isn't even the temporal aspect, but rather this part of the
> language of the ICLA
> that makes me think so: "submitted to the Foundation". As in:
>        You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for
> Your present and
>         future Contributions submitted to the Foundation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.

>> 2) SGA for a donation e.g., from a set of contributors
>> a. The person providing or “granting” the SGA would ideally point to
>> some permanent URL or public URL with the decision by the binding
>> set of members of the contributors (at a minimum, within reason e.g.,
>> defined as all those active, or as all contributors ever, or all those
>> that responded to my email with a deadline of 2 weeks, or a month etc.)
> 
> This is what I've seen with most existing projects without an active
> corporate sponsor.

I do not feel that this passes the due diligence test.

I found this wallet with this guy's name and phone number and I called him for two weeks but
he didn't respond so it's mine. I even posted it on the internet. I tried.

Where ownership is involved we need to have more than "I tried".

???

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

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo


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


Mime
View raw message