When is an ICLA required (was Re: [jira] Commented: (UIMA-616) Ecore2UimaTypeSystem makes unjustified assumptions about URIs)

[Adam Lally <al...@alum.rpi.edu>]

> Thilo Goetz commented on UIMA-616:
> ----------------------------------
>
> We don't need an ICLA for that small a change.  However, if you think you might continue to make contributions (which I hope you do), it would be good to file an ICLA.  They take a little bit to register, so the sooner the better.
>

I'm not arguing with your point of view, but how does one decide
whether an ICLA is needed?  Our webpage says:

>We require every contributor to fill out the standard Apache
Individual Contributors License Agreement.
>Exception - very small contributions such as fixing spelling errors,
where the content is small enough to not be considered intellectual
property, can be submitted by a contributor as a patch, without an
ICLA on file for that contributor.

Maybe we should change "fixing spelling errors" to something more
descriptive - whatever that is?  Currently I have no good idea of
what's intended here.

-Adam

Re: When is an ICLA required (was Re: [jira] Commented: (UIMA-616) Ecore2UimaTypeSystem makes unjustified assumptions about URIs)

[Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>]

We need to discuss what's on our website.
This is an important issue that needs to
be decided by the PMC.  Maybe it would be
better to take what we have now off-line
until we've come to a common decision.

Each patch is different and needs to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.  What
is important is that nothing is committed
that we don't have the right to commit, no
matter if the contributor has an ICLA on
file or not.  When a patch is submitted,
people need to click on the "for inclusion
with Apache" button, and that is considered
good enough normally.  When we have an
ICLA on file, the only thing that really
buys us is the understanding that the
contributor has probably read the ICLA before
signing it and can be expected to pay a little
more attention.

However, if you follow some of the other
Apache projects, you begin to realize that
even long-time committers can be fuzzy on what
they're allowed to commit.  So it's always
up to the PMC to supervise incoming patches,
from everybody.

In the case of a few lines of bug fixing code
that were clearly written specifically to fix
this issue, and contributed under the ASL,
there is no legal problem whatsoever (notwithstanding
what our website says).

--Thilo


Adam Lally wrote:
>> Thilo Goetz commented on UIMA-616:
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> We don't need an ICLA for that small a change.  However, if you think you might continue to make contributions (which I hope you do), it would be good to file an ICLA.  They take a little bit to register, so the sooner the better.
>>
> 
> I'm not arguing with your point of view, but how does one decide
> whether an ICLA is needed?  Our webpage says:
> 
>> We require every contributor to fill out the standard Apache
> Individual Contributors License Agreement.
>> Exception - very small contributions such as fixing spelling errors,
> where the content is small enough to not be considered intellectual
> property, can be submitted by a contributor as a patch, without an
> ICLA on file for that contributor.
> 
> Maybe we should change "fixing spelling errors" to something more
> descriptive - whatever that is?  Currently I have no good idea of
> what's intended here.
> 
> -Adam