CLA / CCLA questions

[Phil Steitz <ps...@apache.org>]

The following is forwarded (with permission) from someone who has 
recently been voted in as a Jakarta Commons committer.  I would 
appreciate some help responding correctly to his questions.

Thanks in advance.

Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding help: I have difficulties to grasp the patent related point 3
of the ICLA. Especially the second half regarding the consequences. I 
work for asmall company and we do not file patents at all. As I 
understand currently,the text simply means, that all patent licenses 
granted by usimmediately get invalid if somebody starts a patent 
lawsuite based on my contributions.

Reading point 4 I am also not sure, if I need the CCLA. Fact is, that 
most code (patches/contributions) for commons is developed being at work 
i.e. the code itself is intellectual property of my employer. I 
currently have a verbal agreement for contributions. AFAICS this would 
be enough, but I should made my employer better aware of the fact, that 
this agreement will turn into a more legal state with signing me the ICLA.




---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

Re: CLA / CCLA questions

[Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>]

On 10/11/05, Phil Steitz <ps...@apache.org> wrote:
> The following is forwarded (with permission) from someone who has
> recently been voted in as a Jakarta Commons committer.  I would
> appreciate some help responding correctly to his questions.

sure -- see below

Cliff

> Thanks in advance.
>
> Phil
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regarding help: I have difficulties to grasp the patent related point 3
> of the ICLA. Especially the second half regarding the consequences. I
> work for asmall company and we do not file patents at all. As I
> understand currently,the text simply means, that all patent licenses
> granted by usimmediately get invalid if somebody starts a patent
> lawsuite based on my contributions.

That's basically right -- not a bad summary -- however, it sounds like
it is not applicable if the contributor does not hold nor plan to
apply for any patents.

>
> Reading point 4 I am also not sure, if I need the CCLA. Fact is, that
> most code (patches/contributions) for commons is developed being at work
> i.e. the code itself is intellectual property of my employer. I
> currently have a verbal agreement for contributions. AFAICS this would
> be enough, but I should made my employer better aware of the fact, that
> this agreement will turn into a more legal state with signing me the ICLA.

If the IP is owned by the employer, we need to get the employer to
sign a cCLA.  Verbal agreements have many flaws, including often
having far less detail than necessary about what is really being
agreed to.  Requiring the employer to sign a cCLA makes it much more
likely they will really understand what they are agreeing to license
and under what terms.

Cliff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org