CLA vs Grant

[Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>]

I've definitely been told at some point that if I have a piece of code
that I've developed outside the ASF, I have to submit a software grant
to bring it in regardless of having signed a CLA etc.

I don't understand why though - the CLA seems to imply I can bring any
code no matter what size into the ASF as long as I'm the IP owner. It
seems that I'd only need a grant if section-7 applied [owned by a
third party].  Am I misunderstanding something?

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: CLA vs Grant

[robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>]

On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:24 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sunday 07 January 2007 05:39, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
> > However, I'd be fine with exceptions on a case-by-case basis though.
> > For example, if a project is already open-sourced and under the ALv2
> > and wants to move here, then a CLA from contributors is likely to be
> > enough.  But, for a work that comes from a closed source work, I feel
> > that a software grant is required - even if every committer already
> > has a CLA on file.
> 
> This is an interesting paragraph as it mixes up the differences between "Open 
> Source" (i.e. licensing) with "Open Development" (i.e. the processes).
> 
> Justin, I think Henri also refers to a simple case of; I sit in my chambers 
> and hacking on some "stuff", perhaps as an experiment, and somewhere down the 
> line I want to move it into a project at ASF. It is not open nor closed 
> source (no license yet), nor open development (done in my study at home).
> But, many larger chunks of code happens exactly that way, I develop it, see if 
> it can work, if so commit and post a notice for comments...
> 
> So I would also like to know where are the official boundaries?

IANAO but AIUI this is delegated to the incubator PMC since all
contributions which are not originally created for apache should be
filtered through the incubator. so that's where i think the line lies.

> Personally, I think that any codebase that has only existed on existing 
> committers' own system and not been distributed, need no additional grant.

CLAs are a lot more difficult to audit than software grants. software
grants are much cleaner and clearer. so, i would encourage projects
accepting any substantial code base to use a software grant.

(i could list a number of examples where a lack of a software grant has
caused difficulties years later...)

- robert

Re: CLA vs Grant

[Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>]

On Sunday 07 January 2007 05:39, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> However, I'd be fine with exceptions on a case-by-case basis though.
> For example, if a project is already open-sourced and under the ALv2
> and wants to move here, then a CLA from contributors is likely to be
> enough.  But, for a work that comes from a closed source work, I feel
> that a software grant is required - even if every committer already
> has a CLA on file.

This is an interesting paragraph as it mixes up the differences between "Open 
Source" (i.e. licensing) with "Open Development" (i.e. the processes).

Justin, I think Henri also refers to a simple case of; I sit in my chambers 
and hacking on some "stuff", perhaps as an experiment, and somewhere down the 
line I want to move it into a project at ASF. It is not open nor closed 
source (no license yet), nor open development (done in my study at home).
But, many larger chunks of code happens exactly that way, I develop it, see if 
it can work, if so commit and post a notice for comments...

So I would also like to know where are the official boundaries?

Personally, I think that any codebase that has only existed on existing 
committers' own system and not been distributed, need no additional grant.


Cheers
Niclas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: CLA vs Grant

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On 1/6/07, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've definitely been told at some point that if I have a piece of code
> that I've developed outside the ASF, I have to submit a software grant
> to bring it in regardless of having signed a CLA etc.
>
> I don't understand why though - the CLA seems to imply I can bring any
> code no matter what size into the ASF as long as I'm the IP owner. It
> seems that I'd only need a grant if section-7 applied [owned by a
> third party].  Am I misunderstanding something?

My reading of the CLA is that it applies only to projects that already
exist.  The software grant is a way of bootstrapping a new Work inside
the ASF.  However, I can envisage a reading of the CLA where that is
not the case - such that it covers all works even if this code is the
initial work.  I don't know Cliff or others would claim is the
'official' rendition though.

Nevertheless, from a policy perspective, my opinion is that we should
seek a software grant on file for works that were not developed
through our processes.  IMO, this makes the IP situation much clearer
- with normal contributions done on our mailing lists, it is usually
clear about the provenance of the code.  But, for entire works that
you create wholly outside of the ASF, it's usually not as clear.
Hence, a software grant ensures that the ASF has more than enough
paperwork on file for that work.

However, I'd be fine with exceptions on a case-by-case basis though.
For example, if a project is already open-sourced and under the ALv2
and wants to move here, then a CLA from contributors is likely to be
enough.  But, for a work that comes from a closed source work, I feel
that a software grant is required - even if every committer already
has a CLA on file.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org