You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> on 2016/06/09 15:46:08 UTC
ICLA for contributors
As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual
Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
"The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation
to any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual
property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend
the project should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at
some future time. A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an
individual is given commit rights to an ASF project.
For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing
intellectual property via the corporation, that may have been assigned
as part of an employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not
remove the need for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an
individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not owned by
the corporation signing the CCLA."
There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This
removes any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a
simple solution.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
is what we did at OFBiz.
The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
Ron
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: ICLA for contributors
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
It is the responsibility of the committer to get a CCLA signed by their
employer if they are being paid for the work being done or have a clause
in their employment contract that give ownership to the employer of all
of the work that they do during their term of employment.
This is impossible to know unless you know the employee's situation
completely.
It is worth asking the question about the rights of the employer of each
contributor but you have to trust the contributor.
If contributors have ICLA's and their employer has signed a CCLA, the
committer's responsibility for assuring that the contribution can be
committed, becomes simpler.
Life for a committer just gets easier if every contributor takes a few
minutes and gets an ICLA filed and if a CCLA is required, get their boss
to sign one and put it on file.
I don't see any advantage in not doing this.
Ron
On 13/06/2016 2:33 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> CCLAs are completely optional - and no one (AFAIK) checks the employer
> of new committers as a general rule. (Plus, employers change)
>
> ICLAs are required for committers - and they explicitly say among
> other things that you won't commit things for which the ASF wouldn't
> have the right to redistribute.
>
> Code contributions from non-committers are generally accepted under
> provision 5 of the Apache Software License V2. So strictly speaking an
> ICLA isn't required. However, we generally would want to have an ICLA
> for any major contribution. (Think something on the magnitude of a
> distinct new feature; or something requiring IP Clearance, etc) This
> is essentially the person communicating to us that their contribution
> is being freely given and they are authorized to provide it to us.
>
> --David
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, John Burwell
> <jo...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>> As part of committer on-boarding, the PMC requires each committer candidate have an ASF ICLA in place and verifies the CCLA of their employer.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>>> That is correct from my reading of the Apache page as well.
>>> I think that your definition of committer and contributor is identical to Apache's.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2016 3:57 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I believe Pierre-Luc\u2019s explanation is correct, and that we may have slightly different definitions of contributor and committer. Generally, we define a contributor, we are referring to anyone (committer, PMC member, any person in the world) who contributes code, documentation, etc to the project. We define a committer as a contributor who demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to the project. In recognition of this commitment, committers are granted the right to commit changes to the project\u2019s public repositories. Execution of an ICLA and CCLA are required in order for someone to become an Apache CloudStack committer.
>>>>
>>>> IANAL, but my understanding is that any individual can contribute to an Apache project without signing an ICLA/CCLA because a committer with one in place will perform commit to the repository. The act of the individual giving code to the project and a committer reviewing and committing it to the repository qualifies as rights assignment under by the ASL. Since execution of an ICLA/CCLA is a prerequisite for all Apache CloudStack committers and Apache secures our repositories to only allow committers read/write access, rights assignment under the ASL for our repositories is properly enforced/managed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -John
>>>>
>>>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>>>> @shapeblue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ron,
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
>>>>> for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
>>>>> else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can be a
>>>>> contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider as a
>>>>> contributor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
>>>>>> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
>>>>>> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
>>>>>> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
>>>>>> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
>>>>>> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property
>>>>>> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project
>>>>>> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.
>>>>>> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
>>>>>> commit rights to an ASF project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
>>>>>> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
>>>>>> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an
>>>>>> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need
>>>>>> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any
>>>>>> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the
>>>>>> CCLA."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
>>>>>> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
>>>>>> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
>>>>>> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
>>>>>> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This removes
>>>>>> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
>>>>>> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a simple
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
>>>>>> is what we did at OFBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ron Wheeler
>>> President
>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: ICLA for contributors
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
CCLAs are completely optional - and no one (AFAIK) checks the employer
of new committers as a general rule. (Plus, employers change)
ICLAs are required for committers - and they explicitly say among
other things that you won't commit things for which the ASF wouldn't
have the right to redistribute.
Code contributions from non-committers are generally accepted under
provision 5 of the Apache Software License V2. So strictly speaking an
ICLA isn't required. However, we generally would want to have an ICLA
for any major contribution. (Think something on the magnitude of a
distinct new feature; or something requiring IP Clearance, etc) This
is essentially the person communicating to us that their contribution
is being freely given and they are authorized to provide it to us.
--David
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:56 AM, John Burwell
<jo...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> As part of committer on-boarding, the PMC requires each committer candidate have an ASF ICLA in place and verifies the CCLA of their employer.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
>>
> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>>
>> That is correct from my reading of the Apache page as well.
>> I think that your definition of committer and contributor is identical to Apache's.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 09/06/2016 3:57 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I believe Pierre-Luc’s explanation is correct, and that we may have slightly different definitions of contributor and committer. Generally, we define a contributor, we are referring to anyone (committer, PMC member, any person in the world) who contributes code, documentation, etc to the project. We define a committer as a contributor who demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to the project. In recognition of this commitment, committers are granted the right to commit changes to the project’s public repositories. Execution of an ICLA and CCLA are required in order for someone to become an Apache CloudStack committer.
>>>
>>> IANAL, but my understanding is that any individual can contribute to an Apache project without signing an ICLA/CCLA because a committer with one in place will perform commit to the repository. The act of the individual giving code to the project and a committer reviewing and committing it to the repository qualifies as rights assignment under by the ASL. Since execution of an ICLA/CCLA is a prerequisite for all Apache CloudStack committers and Apache secures our repositories to only allow committers read/write access, rights assignment under the ASL for our repositories is properly enforced/managed.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -John
>>>
>>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>>> @shapeblue
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Ron,
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
>>>> for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
>>>> else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can be a
>>>> contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider as a
>>>> contributor.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
>>>>> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
>>>>> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
>>>>> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
>>>>> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
>>>>> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property
>>>>> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project
>>>>> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.
>>>>> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
>>>>> commit rights to an ASF project.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
>>>>> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
>>>>> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an
>>>>> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need
>>>>> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any
>>>>> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the
>>>>> CCLA."
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
>>>>> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
>>>>> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>>>>>
>>>>> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
>>>>> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
>>>>> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This removes
>>>>> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
>>>>> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a simple
>>>>> solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
>>>>> is what we did at OFBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>>> President
>>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
Re: ICLA for contributors
Posted by John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>.
Ron,
As part of committer on-boarding, the PMC requires each committer candidate have an ASF ICLA in place and verifies the CCLA of their employer.
Thanks,
-John
>
john.burwell@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
On Jun 10, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> wrote:
>
> That is correct from my reading of the Apache page as well.
> I think that your definition of committer and contributor is identical to Apache's.
>
>
> Ron
>
> On 09/06/2016 3:57 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I believe Pierre-Luc’s explanation is correct, and that we may have slightly different definitions of contributor and committer. Generally, we define a contributor, we are referring to anyone (committer, PMC member, any person in the world) who contributes code, documentation, etc to the project. We define a committer as a contributor who demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to the project. In recognition of this commitment, committers are granted the right to commit changes to the project’s public repositories. Execution of an ICLA and CCLA are required in order for someone to become an Apache CloudStack committer.
>>
>> IANAL, but my understanding is that any individual can contribute to an Apache project without signing an ICLA/CCLA because a committer with one in place will perform commit to the repository. The act of the individual giving code to the project and a committer reviewing and committing it to the repository qualifies as rights assignment under by the ASL. Since execution of an ICLA/CCLA is a prerequisite for all Apache CloudStack committers and Apache secures our repositories to only allow committers read/write access, rights assignment under the ASL for our repositories is properly enforced/managed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Ron,
>>>
>>> As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
>>> for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
>>> else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can be a
>>> contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider as a
>>> contributor.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
>>>> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
>>>> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>>>>
>>>> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
>>>> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
>>>> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
>>>> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property
>>>> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project
>>>> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.
>>>> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
>>>> commit rights to an ASF project.
>>>>
>>>> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
>>>> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
>>>> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an
>>>> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need
>>>> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any
>>>> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the
>>>> CCLA."
>>>>
>>>> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
>>>> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
>>>> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>>>>
>>>> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
>>>> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
>>>> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This removes
>>>> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>>>>
>>>> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
>>>> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a simple
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
>>>> is what we did at OFBiz.
>>>>
>>>> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ron Wheeler
>>>> President
>>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: ICLA for contributors
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
That is correct from my reading of the Apache page as well.
I think that your definition of committer and contributor is identical
to Apache's.
Ron
On 09/06/2016 3:57 PM, John Burwell wrote:
> All,
>
> I believe Pierre-Luc\u2019s explanation is correct, and that we may have slightly different definitions of contributor and committer. Generally, we define a contributor, we are referring to anyone (committer, PMC member, any person in the world) who contributes code, documentation, etc to the project. We define a committer as a contributor who demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to the project. In recognition of this commitment, committers are granted the right to commit changes to the project\u2019s public repositories. Execution of an ICLA and CCLA are required in order for someone to become an Apache CloudStack committer.
>
> IANAL, but my understanding is that any individual can contribute to an Apache project without signing an ICLA/CCLA because a committer with one in place will perform commit to the repository. The act of the individual giving code to the project and a committer reviewing and committing it to the repository qualifies as rights assignment under by the ASL. Since execution of an ICLA/CCLA is a prerequisite for all Apache CloudStack committers and Apache secures our repositories to only allow committers read/write access, rights assignment under the ASL for our repositories is properly enforced/managed.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
>> for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
>> else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can be a
>> contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider as a
>> contributor.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>> wrote:
>>> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
>>> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
>>> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>>>
>>> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
>>> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
>>> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
>>> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property
>>> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project
>>> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.
>>> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
>>> commit rights to an ASF project.
>>>
>>> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
>>> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
>>> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an
>>> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need
>>> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any
>>> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the
>>> CCLA."
>>>
>>> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>>>
>>> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
>>> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
>>> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>>>
>>> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
>>> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
>>> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This removes
>>> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>>>
>>> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
>>> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a simple
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
>>> is what we did at OFBiz.
>>>
>>> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ron Wheeler
>>> President
>>> Artifact Software Inc
>>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>>
>>>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: ICLA for contributors
Posted by John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>.
All,
I believe Pierre-Luc’s explanation is correct, and that we may have slightly different definitions of contributor and committer. Generally, we define a contributor, we are referring to anyone (committer, PMC member, any person in the world) who contributes code, documentation, etc to the project. We define a committer as a contributor who demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to the project. In recognition of this commitment, committers are granted the right to commit changes to the project’s public repositories. Execution of an ICLA and CCLA are required in order for someone to become an Apache CloudStack committer.
IANAL, but my understanding is that any individual can contribute to an Apache project without signing an ICLA/CCLA because a committer with one in place will perform commit to the repository. The act of the individual giving code to the project and a committer reviewing and committing it to the repository qualifies as rights assignment under by the ASL. Since execution of an ICLA/CCLA is a prerequisite for all Apache CloudStack committers and Apache secures our repositories to only allow committers read/write access, rights assignment under the ASL for our repositories is properly enforced/managed.
Thanks,
-John
>
john.burwell@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
> for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
> else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can be a
> contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider as a
> contributor.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> wrote:
>
>> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
>> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
>> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>>
>> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
>> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
>> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
>> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property
>> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project
>> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.
>> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
>> commit rights to an ASF project.
>>
>> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
>> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
>> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an
>> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need
>> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any
>> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the
>> CCLA."
>>
>> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>>
>> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
>> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
>> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>>
>> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
>> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
>> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This removes
>> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>>
>> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
>> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a simple
>> solution.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
>> is what we did at OFBiz.
>>
>> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
Re: ICLA for contributors
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
You are right.
The paragraph that I quoted from Apache is pretty clear about that.
They do recommend getting ICLAs from everyone but as you said, it is not
required.
The CCLA is important and I would hope that the main corporate
supporters are all covered.
Ron
On 09/06/2016 1:46 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
> for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
> else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can be a
> contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider as a
> contributor.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> wrote:
>> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
>> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
>> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>>
>> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
>> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
>> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
>> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property
>> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project
>> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.
>> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
>> commit rights to an ASF project.
>>
>> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
>> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
>> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an
>> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need
>> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any
>> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the
>> CCLA."
>>
>> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>>
>> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
>> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
>> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>>
>> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
>> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
>> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This removes
>> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>>
>> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
>> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a simple
>> solution.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
>> is what we did at OFBiz.
>>
>> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> --
>> Ron Wheeler
>> President
>> Artifact Software Inc
>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>>
>>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: ICLA for contributors
Posted by Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org>.
Hi Ron,
As far as I know, ICLA and CCLA is required for commiters, but not required
for non-commiters contributors. I don't know about all details, someone
else in the ML might have more details about this. For sure, you can be a
contributor without submitting code as a anyone in this ML is consider as a
contributor.
Cheers,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> wrote:
> As part of a discussion during last weeks meeting in Mpntreal, the
> question was raised about the requirement to have an Individual Contributor
> License Agreement (ICLA) for each contributor.
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/ describes the requirements as follows:
>
> "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
> any Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via fax or email) an
> Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA). The purpose of this
> agreement is to clearly define the terms under which intellectual property
> has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project
> should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time.
> A signed ICLA is required to be on file before an individual is given
> commit rights to an ASF project.
>
> For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache
> project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual
> property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an
> employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need
> for every developer to sign their own ICLA as an individual, to cover any
> of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the
> CCLA."
>
> There is a split between desirable and mandatory.
>
> I am not sure that the argument that submitting a PR is a clear sign of
> intent to give up all rights, has ever been tested in a court but it is
> much easier to have an signed ICLA for each contributor.
>
> A CCLA for each company that is either paying people to work on the
> project or has a clause in their employment contract giving the company
> rights to all IP created during their employment is required. This removes
> any ambiguity about the individual's right to make a PR.
>
> It is a little bit of housekeeping to keep track of the list of
> contributors with ICLA's. A wiki page listing the contributors is a simple
> solution.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Apache+OFBiz+Contributors
> is what we did at OFBiz.
>
> The ICLA and CCLA is good for all Apache projects.
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
>
>