CCLA & Blank Schedule A

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

Is a CCLA valid if the Schedule A list of authorized employees is blank?  It
doesn't seem to me that filling in Schedule A is required since Schedule A is
not actually mentioned in any of the grants, though filling in the Schedule
would clearly make the CCLA stronger for the contributions from the listed
employees.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: CCLA & Blank Schedule A

[Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>]

I suspect that a CCLA with a blank Schedule A (and no Schedule B) is in
effect an ICLA that happens to be being signed by an individual who can
sign for their employer. Pretty pointless given the CCLA exists for
employer's concerned about employees who can't sign an ICLA alone for
company owned contributions.

Hen


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:

> Is a CCLA valid if the Schedule A list of authorized employees is blank?
>  It
> doesn't seem to me that filling in Schedule A is required since Schedule A
> is
> not actually mentioned in any of the grants, though filling in the Schedule
> would clearly make the CCLA stronger for the contributions from the listed
> employees.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>