You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> on 2012/10/16 22:04:48 UTC
Re: Requiring CLAs for all contributions
On 15/10/2012 11:31, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> While looking for the correct e-mail address to forward a security
>> report to (that will follow in a second), I noticed that your website
>> indicates that a CLA is required before a potential contributor is able
>> to make a contribution.
>
> See http://markmail.org/message/wfso24vyzvkgrlaz.
I see lots of downsides to that policy and no upsides. The issues that
concern me:
- Unnecessary barriers to entry for new contributors
- Legally unnecessary
- Creates additional work for the secretary (not much now but if every
TLP and podling did this it might)
- Re-enforces the meme an iCLA is required to contribute at Apache
I'm also don't believe that an iCLA is even desired for all
contributions. The ALv2 provides all the legal cover we need and desire.
I'm forwarding this to legal-discuss for comment.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Requiring CLAs for all contributions
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
Cheers, thanks Daniel. Will use that.
On 10/16/12 1:35 PM, "Daniel Shahaf" <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>"If you make significant contributions, or get invited as a committer,
>please sign and submit an iCLA."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Requiring CLAs for all contributions
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Filip Maj wrote on Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 13:14:23 -0700:
> We're in the process of updating the site with the following wording (hope
> to have it done by EOD):
>
> "If you have significant contributions to make, or would like commit
> access to the repo, make sure you have signed and submitted the Apache
> CLA."
>
I'd avoid the "would like commit access" phrasing:
"If you make significant contributions, or get invited as a committer,
please sign and submit an iCLA."
>
> How's that?
>
> On 10/16/12 1:04 PM, "Mark Thomas" <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >On 15/10/2012 11:31, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> While looking for the correct e-mail address to forward a security
> >>> report to (that will follow in a second), I noticed that your website
> >>> indicates that a CLA is required before a potential contributor is able
> >>> to make a contribution.
> >>
> >> See http://markmail.org/message/wfso24vyzvkgrlaz.
> >
> >I see lots of downsides to that policy and no upsides. The issues that
> >concern me:
> >- Unnecessary barriers to entry for new contributors
> >- Legally unnecessary
> >- Creates additional work for the secretary (not much now but if every
> >TLP and podling did this it might)
> >- Re-enforces the meme an iCLA is required to contribute at Apache
> >
> >I'm also don't believe that an iCLA is even desired for all
> >contributions. The ALv2 provides all the legal cover we need and desire.
> >
> >I'm forwarding this to legal-discuss for comment.
> >
> >Mark
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Requiring CLAs for all contributions
Posted by Michael Brooks <mi...@michaelbrooks.ca>.
As Fil Maj mentioned, we're in the process of updating our workflow.
For the longest while, we had the misunderstanding that Apache required
every contribution of a creative nature to be accompanied by an iCLA.
Thanks to Jukka and Ross, we've now learned otherwise and have been able to
accept user contributions at a much quicker pace.
Let us know if you would like to see the site wording differ from what Fil
has provided.
Michael
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> We're in the process of updating the site with the following wording (hope
> to have it done by EOD):
>
> "If you have significant contributions to make, or would like commit
> access to the repo, make sure you have signed and submitted the Apache
> CLA."
>
>
> How's that?
>
> On 10/16/12 1:04 PM, "Mark Thomas" <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >On 15/10/2012 11:31, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> While looking for the correct e-mail address to forward a security
> >>> report to (that will follow in a second), I noticed that your website
> >>> indicates that a CLA is required before a potential contributor is able
> >>> to make a contribution.
> >>
> >> See http://markmail.org/message/wfso24vyzvkgrlaz.
> >
> >I see lots of downsides to that policy and no upsides. The issues that
> >concern me:
> >- Unnecessary barriers to entry for new contributors
> >- Legally unnecessary
> >- Creates additional work for the secretary (not much now but if every
> >TLP and podling did this it might)
> >- Re-enforces the meme an iCLA is required to contribute at Apache
> >
> >I'm also don't believe that an iCLA is even desired for all
> >contributions. The ALv2 provides all the legal cover we need and desire.
> >
> >I'm forwarding this to legal-discuss for comment.
> >
> >Mark
> >
>
>
Re: Requiring CLAs for all contributions
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
We're in the process of updating the site with the following wording (hope
to have it done by EOD):
"If you have significant contributions to make, or would like commit
access to the repo, make sure you have signed and submitted the Apache
CLA."
How's that?
On 10/16/12 1:04 PM, "Mark Thomas" <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>On 15/10/2012 11:31, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> While looking for the correct e-mail address to forward a security
>>> report to (that will follow in a second), I noticed that your website
>>> indicates that a CLA is required before a potential contributor is able
>>> to make a contribution.
>>
>> See http://markmail.org/message/wfso24vyzvkgrlaz.
>
>I see lots of downsides to that policy and no upsides. The issues that
>concern me:
>- Unnecessary barriers to entry for new contributors
>- Legally unnecessary
>- Creates additional work for the secretary (not much now but if every
>TLP and podling did this it might)
>- Re-enforces the meme an iCLA is required to contribute at Apache
>
>I'm also don't believe that an iCLA is even desired for all
>contributions. The ALv2 provides all the legal cover we need and desire.
>
>I'm forwarding this to legal-discuss for comment.
>
>Mark
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org