www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Podling CLA/Grant advice
Date Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:23:29 GMT
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to contradict our VP, Legal, just to clarify.
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
>> Clearly, an SGA is intended for the copyright holder. If that’s an individual who
as an
>> individual represents those copyright holders, OK, but it’s gotta be pretty clear.
> That is a pretty high bar, and I've not seen it in practice. In order for an individual
to own
> the rights and grant those rights via an SGA, there would need to be some grant document
> from the contributor to the individual(s) signing the SGA.

+1 to what Craig is saying -- I've also seen a much laxer attitude in
the past. The very questions
I'm asking is whether we should consider tighten our practices or
still allow SGAs that are lax.

I'm actually working on a proposal right now for a project that
existed on GitHub for sometime.
I've assumed that an SGA *on behalf* of the community (but NOT from
somebody who is legally
speaking a copyright holder) will be a way to go.


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

View raw message