openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:11:01 GMT
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Eike Rathke <> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 16:06:48 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> > Will AOOo accept code contributions under AL2, be it on the mailing
>> > list, as JIRA attachment, or otherwise with consent of the original
>> > author, without the author having signed an iCLA?
>> >
>> > My position on this: yes, it should.
>> Let's reframe the question:  Will the project accept code
>> contributions under ALv2 via SVN from any committer?
>> The answer is: We usually operate under CTR.  Any other committer can
>> give a veto on your code contribution, for good reasons.
> Yes, for technical or design reasons or if s/he suspects something
> fishy.
>> I think the same would be true for a patch from a non-committer.
> Of course.
>> Since only a committer can actually check in the patch, this is really
>> the same situation.  Any other committer can veto the merge of the
>> patch.
>> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis.  Personally, I don't
>> have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has
>> clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2.  But a patch of
>> 10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance?
> I wasn't mentioning doubted provenance. I'm talking about cases where
> the author clearly states that he owns the copyright and contributes the
> work under AL2.

If someone hands me a check for $10 and has an illegible signature on
it, I might let that pass.  But if someone gives me a check for $10000
I would probably insist on a legible signature.

Even if I believe someone is honest and sincere, if we're talking
about a significant piece of IP, then I think we should be getting an
iCLA.  An email sent to a list saying you contribute under ALv2 is not
as strong as a signed iCLA.

>> I would not hesitate to veto that.  For the in-between cases, I think
>> we discuss the specific case.
> Ok.
>> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for
>> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
>> ways to vote them in as Committers.  If someone is making many
>> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as
>> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
> I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who does
> not want to get involved too deeply with the project and does not want
> to sign a CLA, yet is willing to contribute his work.

You know that these are two different things, yes?  Someone can sign
the iCLA but not become a committer and so not have any deeper
commitment to participate in the project.

Anyhow, if this did come up, I'd try to understand why the person was
unwilling to sign the iCLA. Not as a debate or an argument, but to
hear their concerns.  We might be able to persuade them.  But if not,
then it is likely that we would need to decline the contribution.


>  Eike
> --
>  PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>  Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD

View raw message