openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 19:16:08 GMT
Well yes, but...

The point of having a policy on these matters
is to avoid turning every committer into a copyright
attorney evaluating each and every individual
contribution on their own.

The policy of this org is that anyone with a copyright
interest in code actively developed here has a signed

CLA on file with us.  While we may not apply that policy
even-handedly, it is what it is.  Yes the Apache License
covers situations where the policy has not been followed,

but whether we could get by with less is not relevant to
the policy nor its application.  What is is making some
conservative non-legally-trained judgements about what may
be safely committed without such an agreement on file.

If you aren't sure, ask the group for an opinion.  If that
is unsatisfactory, ask general@incubator or the legal-discuss@
list for help.  If it gets that far, you might be better to just
err on the conservative side and ask for a CLA anyway.  While it
is currently a bit on the onerous side to send us a signed
agreement, we are working to streamline that process to
reduce it to just clicking on a few buttons in a webform.


>From: Pedro F. Giffuni <>
>Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 3:02 PM
>Subject: Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
>--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
>> >
>> > There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it
>> > philosophical conception, due to history especially
>> > not if it's for OOo. If contributions are welcome
>> > only under iCLA you probably won't see them
>> > showing up here.
>> >
>I agree: none of the projects I usually participate in
>ask for signatures. The few that require them (NetBSD
>IIRC) only ask for committers to accept a CLA.
>OpenOffice is probably a special case wrt patents and
>that's a special strength behind the Apache License so
>I think it's good in case of big contributions (like
>IBM's) to have such a document but otherwise I don't
>think it's standard practice on Apache to ask for
>signatures for small contributions.
>> I sometimes wonder if we'd have greater acceptance of the
>> iCLA if we called it something else, a name that did not
>> include "CLA" in it?
>It looks like SUN's developer agreement left deep scars
>in the community. It's common practice to assume that
>developers know and accept the license of the code they
>are contributing to. What I've seen in other list (tag
>all patches and postings with licenses) is rather
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message