Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20110904174803.GE22507@kulungile.erack.de>
References: <j23lr4$1o1$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<20110831195448.GK29051@kulungile.erack.de>
	<CAP-ksojUhZMc4uy64twBf08cR223vWVy_j+M9rQYU-JrieBQeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110831224533.GQ29051@kulungile.erack.de>
	<CAP-ksohbs8Xg6ePFgi2i+1WW-z-kbE7nOszNSU1rzCm6o7Dt9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110904174803.GE22507@kulungile.erack.de>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:19:30 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksohx0UZiD4ZMjfJ+dDhXypUYcfcuwbNm2Zmz3-hOr-L4aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke <ooo@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 20:11:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> >> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis. =C2=A0Personally, 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. =C2=A0But a pa=
tch 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 t=
he
>> > work under AL2.
>> >
>>
>> If someone hands me a check for $10 and has an illegible signature on
>> it, I might let that pass. =C2=A0But if someone gives me a check for $10=
000
>> I would probably insist on a legible signature.
>
> If the illegible signature is the one deposited with the bank, insisting
> on a legible signature wouldn't help much, to the contrary, you might
> not get your money.
>

But if the illegible signature was not authorized, then I get no
money, plus a fine from my bank when the check is returned as "not
collectable".  Not sure if it is the same in Germany...

>
>> >> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking fo=
r
>> >> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
>> >> ways to vote them in as Committers. =C2=A0If someone is making many
>> >> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in a=
s
>> >> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
>> >
>> > I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who doe=
s
>> > 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?
>
> 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. =C2=A0We might be able to persuade them. =C2=A0But =
if not,
>> then it is likely that we would need to decline the contribution.
>
> 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 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?

-Rob


> =C2=A0Eike
>
> --
> =C2=A0PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communica=
tion.
> =C2=A0Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 =C2=A09E96 2F1A D073 =
293C 05FD
>