CLA Guidance

[Duane Pauls <du...@gmail.com>]

Myself and a couple of colleagues are planning to contribute to an ActiveMQ
subproject, as described here:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Rework-NMS-AMQP-tp4721986.html

Since this is a considerable effort, it's been suggested in the thread
above that those involved should have a CLA on file, even though at the
moment we are not committers.  Without committer status, our methodology
for contributing would be to make changes in our own workspaces, then
submit patches or pull requests to the community to commit.

Does it make sense for those involved with this project to submit CLA's?

If so, is there any guidance as to whether individual
<https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt> or corporate
<https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt> CLA's should be used?
Or would it be that both individual and corporate CLA's are required?

Cheers,
Duane

Re: CLA Guidance

[Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>]

For large contributions, where large is some arbitrary measurement that may vary between project communities, it is considered good practice to collect individual CLAs even if the contributors are not committers. Strictly speaking this is unnecessary because the contribution clause in the Apache license provides for the acceptance of contributions that are intentionally offered. Submitting a patch, creating a pull request, offering the contribution via discussion lists are all considered as intentional offers. However, having contributor agreements on file provides a useful paper trail for the foundation should anyone ever object as to the IP status of that contribution.

 

 As for whether corporate agreements are also necessary it Is generally a judgement call on the part of the contributors. The main things to consider are was the work done on company time and if so does your employment contract/Employment law in your Country assign copyright and IP rights to your employer. If any of those things are true getting your company to sign a corporate agreement on your behalf provides additional assurance to both you and the foundation that you’re able to contribute the proposed contribution.

 

 Note that you may generally want to check with an employer and the legal department at your employer before signing any contribution agreement, whether individual or corporate, to ensure that doing so would not violate anything in your contract or present legal issues for your employer e.g. loss of patent rights.

 

 If in doubt consult a real lawyer, most people on this list including myself are not lawyers

 

Rob

 

From: Duane Pauls <du...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
Date: Tuesday, 28 February 2017 15:56
To: <le...@apache.org>
Subject: CLA Guidance

 

Myself and a couple of colleagues are planning to contribute to an ActiveMQ subproject, as described here:

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Rework-NMS-AMQP-tp4721986.html

 

Since this is a considerable effort, it's been suggested in the thread above that those involved should have a CLA on file, even though at the moment we are not committers.  Without committer status, our methodology for contributing would be to make changes in our own workspaces, then submit patches or pull requests to the community to commit.

 

Does it make sense for those involved with this project to submit CLA's?

 

If so, is there any guidance as to whether individual or corporate CLA's should be used?  Or would it be that both individual and corporate CLA's are required?

 

Cheers,

Duane