www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Podling CLA/Grant advice
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2017 04:40:02 GMT
If the PMC and committers have ICLAs on file, then depending on the size of the contribution,
and
how it was made will determine how many of those need to have ICLAs on file. The more the
merrier,
but also within reason. If someone comes along later, and says we don’t want code X, Y or
Z in our
project b/c I contributed, and didn’t sign an ICLA then we take it out, and move on.

 

Cheers,

Chris

 

 

 

 

From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Date: Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:25 PM
To: ASF Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Subject: Podling CLA/Grant advice

 

Hi Legal list,

One of the Incubator check-list items states:

"Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received. It is
only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, and any new code produced
by the project. "

When a project is coming from a single contributor (such as a company), this is handled by
a software grant.

When a project already exists and is relicensing, this is 'fun' and involves a lot of CLA
signing (in essence to get permission to relicense to the Apache 2.0 licence). 

 

When a project is an already existing project _AND_ is already/has always been under the Apache
2.0 license, how should this be handled?

Specifically I am looking at Apache MXNet. There are 400+ contributors. The existing and new
committers have all signed ICLAs.  Who else among the ~380 remaining contributors need to
sign ICLA/grants? And what reason do we give to them when asking them to sign the ICLA/grant
given that the code isn't being relicensed?

Thanks,

Hen


Mime
View raw message