iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>]

Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I get a question:

„is there any contribution agreement to sign?“

In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?


Regards

Chris

Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>]

Module review: checking for missing/incorrect license headers, amending RAT exclusions, adding/changing license headers, removing trailing blanks.

IMHO: not sufficient IP to warrant requiring an ICLA. 

But as everyone else here says, t's always good to have an ICLA if you are planning on contributing.

Craig

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 7:59 AM, Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> So I merged at least one or two commits already, just because they were
> small enough.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> --emi
> 
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Am Dienstag, den 03.10.2017, 16:47 +0200 schrieb Christian Lenz:
>>> Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I
>>> get a question:
>>> 
>>> „is there any contribution agreement to sign?“
>>> 
>>> In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?
>> 
>> the work itself needs to be done and is valuable, but I don't see this
>> reaching the level of creativity, that is needed for IP protection.
>> 
>> So I merged at least one or two commits already, just because they were
>> small enough.
>> 
>> Greetings
>> 
>> Matthias
>> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>]

> So I merged at least one or two commits already, just because they were
small enough.

I agree.


--emi

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 03.10.2017, 16:47 +0200 schrieb Christian Lenz:
> > Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I
> > get a question:
> >
> > „is there any contribution agreement to sign?“
> >
> > In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?
>
> the work itself needs to be done and is valuable, but I don't see this
> reaching the level of creativity, that is needed for IP protection.
>
> So I merged at least one or two commits already, just because they were
> small enough.
>
> Greetings
>
> Matthias
>

Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 03.10.2017, 16:47 +0200 schrieb Christian Lenz:
> Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I
> get a question:
> 
> „is there any contribution agreement to sign?“
> 
> In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?

the work itself needs to be done and is valuable, but I don't see this
reaching the level of creativity, that is needed for IP protection.

So I merged at least one or two commits already, just because they were
small enough.

Greetings

Matthias

AW: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>]

Of Course it is always good, but if it is not needed for the module Review for the users to bring it on, it will be ok. 

Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10

Von: Emilian Bold
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2017 16:50
An: NetBeans Dev@
Betreff: Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

PS: Note how the iCLA may be digitally signed with PGP. No need to FAX
stuff.


--emi

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would say no. Any review will be double-checked by somebody else too and
> committed by a committer.
>
> --emi
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I get a
>> question:
>>
>> „is there any contribution agreement to sign?“
>>
>> In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>

Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 03.10.2017, 17:50 +0300 schrieb Emilian Bold:
> PS: Note how the iCLA may be digitally signed with PGP. No need to
> FAX
> stuff.

it does not even need to be signed by PGP. I printed the sheet, filled
it, scanned it and emailed it to apache. Very painless!

Greetings

Matthias

Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>]

PS: Note how the iCLA may be digitally signed with PGP. No need to FAX
stuff.


--emi

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would say no. Any review will be double-checked by somebody else too and
> committed by a committer.
>
> --emi
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I get a
>> question:
>>
>> „is there any contribution agreement to sign?“
>>
>> In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>

Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>]

I would say no. Any review will be double-checked by somebody else too and
committed by a committer.

--emi

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
wrote:

> Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I get a
> question:
>
> „is there any contribution agreement to sign?“
>
> In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Chris
>

Re: iCLA needed for Module Reviews?

[Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>]

I think it's always good to get your iCLA sorted out, it's not hard,
regardless of whether you need it for this specific task.

https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf

Gj

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>
wrote:

> Because I asked for help in the slack chan to Review the modules, I get a
> question:
>
> „is there any contribution agreement to sign?“
>
> In General yes, but is this iCLA needed for module Review too?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Chris
>