You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2016/01/07 17:28:39 UTC
FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
* Is the CCLA required?
* No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
If not on the site, could I propose that something akin to that be added to
the FAQ and clarified in the CLA description?
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html
Thanks,
Hen
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
(Sorry for this unnecessary reply - my mail client was not updating to show
the rest of the thread)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think it'd be splitting hairs. We'd end up with "This may be, or may not
> be, beneficial to your employer. " - ie) it cancels out :)
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect
>> of:
>>
>> Makes two of us. I don't this the understanding bellow (which I share
>> 99.9% btw)
>> is articulated anywhere on our sites.
>>
>> > * Is the CCLA required?
>> > * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires
>> so.
>>
>> The 0.01% I don't quite share is the modality of the last sentence. I
>> think
>> we may need to communicate that it actually may be beneficial to the
>> employer to sign it. But perhaps I'm splitting hair here.
>>
>> > If not on the site, could I propose that something akin to that be
>> added to
>> > the FAQ and clarified in the CLA description?
>> >
>> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
>> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
I think it'd be splitting hairs. We'd end up with "This may be, or may not
be, beneficial to your employer. " - ie) it cancels out :)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect
> of:
>
> Makes two of us. I don't this the understanding bellow (which I share
> 99.9% btw)
> is articulated anywhere on our sites.
>
> > * Is the CCLA required?
> > * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>
> The 0.01% I don't quite share is the modality of the last sentence. I think
> we may need to communicate that it actually may be beneficial to the
> employer to sign it. But perhaps I'm splitting hair here.
>
> > If not on the site, could I propose that something akin to that be added
> to
> > the FAQ and clarified in the CLA description?
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
Makes two of us. I don't this the understanding bellow (which I share 99.9% btw)
is articulated anywhere on our sites.
> * Is the CCLA required?
> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
The 0.01% I don't quite share is the modality of the last sentence. I think
we may need to communicate that it actually may be beneficial to the
employer to sign it. But perhaps I'm splitting hair here.
> If not on the site, could I propose that something akin to that be added to
> the FAQ and clarified in the CLA description?
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html
+1
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Committers sign ICLAs, contributors don't (typically - maybe a project has
a reason for requiring contributors to sign ICLAs but I don't recall it
being done).
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> One point of clarification: at what point does it become a committer's
> duty to ensure that a *contributor* (eg who has uploaded a patch to fix a
> bug or contribute a feature) has the appropriate documentation on file?
>
> As long as I've been around Apache it's been my understanding that the
> onus is on the contributor to know if their employment situation demands an
> ICLA or CCLA, not the committer who accepts the work. A while back, we used
> to have a checkbox on the JIRA attach button that was a sort of
> mini-license-grant, but that disappeared a few years ago IIRC.
>
> Would be good to clarify this in the FAQ entry.
>
> -Todd
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:44 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fixed typo:
>>
>> their's => theirs
>>
>> On 7 January 2016 at 21:31, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> > I've pushed this out to the FAQ, lightly edited:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.staging.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#are-contributors-required-to-sign-a-ccla
>> >
>> > Changes:
>> >
>> > 1) Expanded the original question
>> >
>> > 2) Fixed a typo "employent" and reworded first sentence
>> >
>> > 3) Changed CLA to ICLA for clarity
>> >
>> > 4) Added mentions of sections 4 and 8 of the ICLA where additional
>> > clarifications can be found.
>> >
>> > - Sam Ruby
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite
>> correct
>> >>> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your
>> employent
>> >>> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
>> >>>
>> >>> Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the
>> code that
>> >>> they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against
>> their employer's
>> >>> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific
>> aspects of
>> >>> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they
>> can or
>> >>> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever
>> particular
>> >>> project they are committing in.
>> >>>
>> >>> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
>> >>> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws,
>> contracts,
>> >>> policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many
>> committers
>> >>> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many
>> other
>> >>> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their
>> own
>> >>> CLA with this umbrella document.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't
>> exactly an easy call
>> >>> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
>> >>>
>> >>> Bill
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Good suggestion
>> >>>
>> >>> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your
>> employer requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many
>> employment contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time
>> (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be
>> desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside
>> employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit
>> effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g.
>> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
>> >>>
>> >>> Rob
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
>> >>> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
>> >>> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
>> >>> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
>> >>> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
>> >>> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the
>> effect of:
>> >>>
>> >>> * Is the CCLA required?
>> >>> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires
>> so.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
One point of clarification: at what point does it become a committer's duty
to ensure that a *contributor* (eg who has uploaded a patch to fix a bug or
contribute a feature) has the appropriate documentation on file?
As long as I've been around Apache it's been my understanding that the onus
is on the contributor to know if their employment situation demands an ICLA
or CCLA, not the committer who accepts the work. A while back, we used to
have a checkbox on the JIRA attach button that was a sort of
mini-license-grant, but that disappeared a few years ago IIRC.
Would be good to clarify this in the FAQ entry.
-Todd
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:44 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fixed typo:
>
> their's => theirs
>
> On 7 January 2016 at 21:31, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > I've pushed this out to the FAQ, lightly edited:
> >
> >
> http://www.staging.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#are-contributors-required-to-sign-a-ccla
> >
> > Changes:
> >
> > 1) Expanded the original question
> >
> > 2) Fixed a typo "employent" and reworded first sentence
> >
> > 3) Changed CLA to ICLA for clarity
> >
> > 4) Added mentions of sections 4 and 8 of the ICLA where additional
> > clarifications can be found.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite
> correct
> >>> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your
> employent
> >>> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
> >>>
> >>> Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the
> code that
> >>> they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against
> their employer's
> >>> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific
> aspects of
> >>> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they
> can or
> >>> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever
> particular
> >>> project they are committing in.
> >>>
> >>> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
> >>> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws,
> contracts,
> >>> policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers
> >>> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many
> other
> >>> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their
> own
> >>> CLA with this umbrella document.
> >>>
> >>> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly
> an easy call
> >>> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>
> wrote:
> >>> Good suggestion
> >>>
> >>> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your
> employer requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many
> employment contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time
> (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be
> desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside
> employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit
> effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g.
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>>
> >>> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> >>> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
> >>> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
> >>> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
> >>> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
> >>> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect
> of:
> >>>
> >>> * Is the CCLA required?
> >>> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires
> so.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Fixed typo:
their's => theirs
On 7 January 2016 at 21:31, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> I've pushed this out to the FAQ, lightly edited:
>
> http://www.staging.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#are-contributors-required-to-sign-a-ccla
>
> Changes:
>
> 1) Expanded the original question
>
> 2) Fixed a typo "employent" and reworded first sentence
>
> 3) Changed CLA to ICLA for clarity
>
> 4) Added mentions of sections 4 and 8 of the ICLA where additional
> clarifications can be found.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite correct
>>> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your employent
>>> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
>>>
>>> Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the code that
>>> they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against their employer's
>>> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific aspects of
>>> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or
>>> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular
>>> project they are committing in.
>>>
>>> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
>>> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws, contracts,
>>> policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers
>>> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many other
>>> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own
>>> CLA with this umbrella document.
>>>
>>> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy call
>>> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
>>> Good suggestion
>>>
>>> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your employer requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many employment contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
>>> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
>>> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
>>> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
>>> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
>>>
>>> * Is the CCLA required?
>>> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Thanks all on the thread. Very impressed to post the question, go to work,
get home and discover it had gone from question to posted FAQ in the
meantime :)
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Herewith some more edits. Specifically, I changed "the code that they
> contribute is theirs to license" to "they have the right to contribute".
> And other editorial and grammatical changes. Change commas to semicolons,
> change between to among, etc. And a suggestion to contact their own
> company's counsel for answers to questions not addressed here.
>
> A CCLA is only required if contributors' employment situation necessitates
> that a CCLA be signed. See section 4 of the ICLA for details.
>
> Committers must sign an ICLA. They make an individual claim that they have
> the right to contribute. Reviewing their ICLA against their employer's
> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific
> aspects of their employment contract and business policies will reveal that
> they can or cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to
> whichever particular project they are committing in.
>
> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/ICLA signer may use to
> eliminate all of the ambiguity among all these conflicting laws, contracts,
> policies and job assignments. The Apache Software Foundation has never
> required it. Many committers are confident of their individual
> representations under the ICLA, and many other committers find it
> reassuring that their company has backed up their own ICLA with this
> umbrella document.
>
> It is the ICLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an
> easy call for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry. If
> there are any questions as to whether a CCLA is required, committers are
> encouraged to consult their employers' counsel.
>
> Finally, see section 8 of the ICLA, which requires signers to notify the
> Foundation when their status changes in ways that may require this to be
> reassessed.
>
> Craig
>
> > On Jan 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > I've pushed this out to the FAQ, lightly edited:
> >
> >
> http://www.staging.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#are-contributors-required-to-sign-a-ccla
> >
> > Changes:
> >
> > 1) Expanded the original question
> >
> > 2) Fixed a typo "employent" and reworded first sentence
> >
> > 3) Changed CLA to ICLA for clarity
> >
> > 4) Added mentions of sections 4 and 8 of the ICLA where additional
> > clarifications can be found.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite
> correct
> >>> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your
> employent
> >>> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
> >>>
> >>> Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the
> code that
> >>> they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against
> their employer's
> >>> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific
> aspects of
> >>> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they
> can or
> >>> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever
> particular
> >>> project they are committing in.
> >>>
> >>> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
> >>> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws,
> contracts,
> >>> policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers
> >>> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many
> other
> >>> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their
> own
> >>> CLA with this umbrella document.
> >>>
> >>> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly
> an easy call
> >>> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>
> wrote:
> >>> Good suggestion
> >>>
> >>> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your
> employer requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many
> employment contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time
> (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be
> desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside
> employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit
> effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g.
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>>
> >>> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> >>> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
> >>> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
> >>> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
> >>> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
> >>> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect
> of:
> >>>
> >>> * Is the CCLA required?
> >>> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires
> so.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Herewith some more edits. Specifically, I changed "the code that they contribute is theirs to license" to "they have the right to contribute". And other editorial and grammatical changes. Change commas to semicolons, change between to among, etc. And a suggestion to contact their own company's counsel for answers to questions not addressed here.
A CCLA is only required if contributors' employment situation necessitates that a CCLA be signed. See section 4 of the ICLA for details.
Committers must sign an ICLA. They make an individual claim that they have the right to contribute. Reviewing their ICLA against their employer's ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific aspects of their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular project they are committing in.
The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/ICLA signer may use to eliminate all of the ambiguity among all these conflicting laws, contracts, policies and job assignments. The Apache Software Foundation has never required it. Many committers are confident of their individual representations under the ICLA, and many other committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own ICLA with this umbrella document.
It is the ICLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy call for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry. If there are any questions as to whether a CCLA is required, committers are encouraged to consult their employers' counsel.
Finally, see section 8 of the ICLA, which requires signers to notify the Foundation when their status changes in ways that may require this to be reassessed.
Craig
> On Jan 7, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> I've pushed this out to the FAQ, lightly edited:
>
> http://www.staging.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#are-contributors-required-to-sign-a-ccla
>
> Changes:
>
> 1) Expanded the original question
>
> 2) Fixed a typo "employent" and reworded first sentence
>
> 3) Changed CLA to ICLA for clarity
>
> 4) Added mentions of sections 4 and 8 of the ICLA where additional
> clarifications can be found.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite correct
>>> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your employent
>>> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
>>>
>>> Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the code that
>>> they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against their employer's
>>> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific aspects of
>>> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or
>>> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular
>>> project they are committing in.
>>>
>>> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
>>> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws, contracts,
>>> policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers
>>> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many other
>>> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own
>>> CLA with this umbrella document.
>>>
>>> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy call
>>> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
>>> Good suggestion
>>>
>>> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your employer requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many employment contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
>>> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
>>> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
>>> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
>>> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
>>>
>>> * Is the CCLA required?
>>> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
I've pushed this out to the FAQ, lightly edited:
http://www.staging.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#are-contributors-required-to-sign-a-ccla
Changes:
1) Expanded the original question
2) Fixed a typo "employent" and reworded first sentence
3) Changed CLA to ICLA for clarity
4) Added mentions of sections 4 and 8 of the ICLA where additional
clarifications can be found.
- Sam Ruby
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> +1
>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite correct
>> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your employent
>> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
>>
>> Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the code that
>> they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against their employer's
>> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific aspects of
>> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or
>> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular
>> project they are committing in.
>>
>> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
>> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws, contracts,
>> policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers
>> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many other
>> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own
>> CLA with this umbrella document.
>>
>> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy call
>> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
>> Good suggestion
>>
>> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your employer requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many employment contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
>> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
>> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
>> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
>> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
>>
>> * Is the CCLA required?
>> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1
> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite correct
> with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your employent
> situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
>
> Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the code that
> they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against their employer's
> ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific aspects of
> their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or
> cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever particular
> project they are committing in.
>
> The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
> eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws, contracts,
> policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers
> are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many other
> committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own
> CLA with this umbrella document.
>
> It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an easy call
> for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
> Good suggestion
>
> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your employer requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many employment contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time (and sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
>
> Rob
>
> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
>
> * Is the CCLA required?
> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Common source of confusion, worthy of an FAQ entry, but not quite correct
with respect to the answer "if your employer requires so". "if your
employent
situation necessitates" is a little more accurate.
Committers must sign a CLA. They make an individual claim that the code
that
they contribute is their's to license. Reviewing their CLA against their
employer's
ownership interests, applicable state and national law, and specific
aspects of
their employment contract and business policies will reveal that they can or
cannot make that claim regarding any particular commit to whichever
particular
project they are committing in.
The CCLA is a backup document that the committer/CLA signer may use to
eliminate all of the ambiguity between all these conflicting laws,
contracts,
policies and job assignments. We've never required it, many committers
are confident of their individual representations under the CLA, many other
committers find it reassuring that their company has backed up their own
CLA with this umbrella document.
It is the CLA signatory's call if it is required, but it isn't exactly an
easy call
for many committers employed in the IT/Software industry.
Bill
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
> Good suggestion
>
> I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your employer
> requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many employment
> contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time (and
> sometimes outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be
> desirable/required unless Apache contributions are done only outside
> employer time. Also in some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit
> effect of the jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g.
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer
>
> Rob
>
> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
> To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
> Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
>
> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
>
> * Is the CCLA required?
> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>
>
Re: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>.
Good suggestion
I would think that the answer needs to be more than just "if your employer
requires so". It would need to cover the fact that many employment
contracts give copyright and IP of work done on employer time (and sometimes
outside of it) to the employer and so a CCLA would be desirable/required
unless Apache contributions are done only outside employer time. Also in
some jurisdictions this may actually be an implicit effect of the
jurisdictions copyright/IP law e.g.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-a
n-employer
Rob
From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
Date: Thursday, 7 January 2016 16:28
To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
Subject: FAQ: CCLA Optional?
> Am I being blind, or is there not a FAQ saying something to the effect of:
>
> * Is the CCLA required?
> * No, this document only needs to be signed if your employer requires so.
>
> If not on the site, could I propose that something akin to that be added to
> the FAQ and clarified in the CLA description?
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hen