You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Michael Stahl <ms...@openoffice.org> on 2011/08/12 18:53:41 UTC
[legal] ICLA paragraph 7
hi Apache mentors,
i've got a question as to what extent an ICLA from the copyright holder
is required for code contributions.
a volunteer who is currently working in GSoC over at LibreOffice (who
has not signed an Apache ICLA) has given me permission to contribute a
bunch of makefiles that he wrote, with no licensing restriction.
now the ICLA contains this paragraph:
> 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
> You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
> Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
> any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
> related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
> are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
> "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
so it seems to me that an ICLA from the copyright holder is not an
absolute requirement to contribute to Apache.
is there any restriction in scope or otherwise for this paragraph?
what exactly are the process requirements?
my assumption is that the Committer must ask the potential contributor
whether they actually hold the copyright.
i guess "submit it separately" means that it must be its own SVN commit,
not mixed with anything the Committer wrote him/herself.
is it sufficient to put something like this into the SVN commit message:
"Submitted on behalf of a third party: [author name]; no licensing
restrictions"
is it necessary to ask on the mailing list in every instance?
in this case we are talking about ~30 new files, totalling ~2000 lines
(of which ~1000 are the boilerplate licensing headers...).
regards,
michael
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Well yes, but...
The point of having a policy on these matters
is to avoid turning every committer into a copyright
attorney evaluating each and every individual
contribution on their own.
The policy of this org is that anyone with a copyright
interest in code actively developed here has a signed
CLA on file with us. While we may not apply that policy
even-handedly, it is what it is. Yes the Apache License
covers situations where the policy has not been followed,
but whether we could get by with less is not relevant to
the policy nor its application. What is is making some
conservative non-legally-trained judgements about what may
be safely committed without such an agreement on file.
If you aren't sure, ask the group for an opinion. If that
is unsatisfactory, ask general@incubator or the legal-discuss@
list for help. If it gets that far, you might be better to just
err on the conservative side and ask for a CLA anyway. While it
is currently a bit on the onerous side to send us a signed
agreement, we are working to streamline that process to
reduce it to just clicking on a few buttons in a webform.
HTH
>________________________________
>From: Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 3:02 PM
>Subject: Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
>
>
>
>--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
>..
>> >
>> > There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it
>> > philosophical conception, due to history especially
>> > not if it's for OOo. If contributions are welcome
>> > only under iCLA you probably won't see them
>> > showing up here.
>> >
>>
>
>I agree: none of the projects I usually participate in
>ask for signatures. The few that require them (NetBSD
>IIRC) only ask for committers to accept a CLA.
>
>OpenOffice is probably a special case wrt patents and
>that's a special strength behind the Apache License so
>I think it's good in case of big contributions (like
>IBM's) to have such a document but otherwise I don't
>think it's standard practice on Apache to ask for
>signatures for small contributions.
>
>> I sometimes wonder if we'd have greater acceptance of the
>> iCLA if we called it something else, a name that did not
>> include "CLA" in it?
>>
>
>It looks like SUN's developer agreement left deep scars
>in the community. It's common practice to assume that
>developers know and accept the license of the code they
>are contributing to. What I've seen in other list (tag
>all patches and postings with licenses) is rather
>weird.
>
>Pedro.
>
>
>
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Tue, 9/6/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So I don't think we can give an answer set in
> stone.
> >
> > Again, section 5 of the Apache License is clear
> enough.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>
> True. I could also send an email that says "I promise
> to pay Pedro $1 million dollars".
So *you* are the guy sending me email from Nigeria? ;-).
> But wouldn't you feel better having that in a
> signed document? I sure would.
>
Having the contribution in a mailing list or in
a bugzilla report is equivalent to getting the
money in the bank.
It doesn't matter if people didn't read the license
or if they got it as part of LibreOffice: if they
contribute to us, and they don't state otherwise,
it is under AL2.
Pedro.
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/6/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> So I don't think we can give an answer set in stone.
>
> Again, section 5 of the Apache License is clear enough.
>
> Pedro.
>
True. I could also send an email that says "I promise to pay Pedro $1
million dollars". But wouldn't you feel better having that in a
signed document? I sure would.
-Rob
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Tue, 9/6/11, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> So I don't think we can give an answer set in stone.
Again, section 5 of the Apache License is clear enough.
Pedro.
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
>> OpenOffice is probably a special case wrt patents and
>> that's a special strength behind the Apache License so
>> I think it's good in case of big contributions (like
>> IBM's) to have such a document but otherwise I don't
>> think it's standard practice on Apache to ask for
>> signatures for small contributions.
>
> Under another Apache project, Apache Camel, the JIRA system allows
> contributions of code and changelists, which requires a box be checked
> that says the contribution is made under the terms and policies, etc.
> This is done on a per-contribution basis, and doesn't require a CLA
> from the contributor. Said contribution would then need to actually
> be applied by a CLA-submitted committer.
>
And could be vetoed by a CLA-submitted committer, if he or she thought
the code contribution required a CLA.
The size of the patch is not the only issue. Remember, I can take a
2000 line contribution and break it into 200 ten-line patches, if I
really cared to,
So I don't think we can give an answer set in stone. We need to look
at reach case and see if it is reasonable, whether it passes the
"sniff test".
And remember, the project, Apache and our users are never worse off
for having an additional iCLA on file.
-Rob
> Don
>
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
> OpenOffice is probably a special case wrt patents and
> that's a special strength behind the Apache License so
> I think it's good in case of big contributions (like
> IBM's) to have such a document but otherwise I don't
> think it's standard practice on Apache to ask for
> signatures for small contributions.
Under another Apache project, Apache Camel, the JIRA system allows
contributions of code and changelists, which requires a box be checked
that says the contribution is made under the terms and policies, etc.
This is done on a per-contribution basis, and doesn't require a CLA
from the contributor. Said contribution would then need to actually
be applied by a CLA-submitted committer.
Don
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
..
> >
> > There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it
> > philosophical conception, due to history especially
> > not if it's for OOo. If contributions are welcome
> > only under iCLA you probably won't see them
> > showing up here.
> >
>
I agree: none of the projects I usually participate in
ask for signatures. The few that require them (NetBSD
IIRC) only ask for committers to accept a CLA.
OpenOffice is probably a special case wrt patents and
that's a special strength behind the Apache License so
I think it's good in case of big contributions (like
IBM's) to have such a document but otherwise I don't
think it's standard practice on Apache to ask for
signatures for small contributions.
> I sometimes wonder if we'd have greater acceptance of the
> iCLA if we called it something else, a name that did not
> include "CLA" in it?
>
It looks like SUN's developer agreement left deep scars
in the community. It's common practice to assume that
developers know and accept the license of the code they
are contributing to. What I've seen in other list (tag
all patches and postings with licenses) is rather
weird.
Pedro.
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 20:11:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> >> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I don't
>> >> have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has
>> >> clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2. But a patch of
>> >> 10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance?
>> >
>> > I wasn't mentioning doubted provenance. I'm talking about cases where
>> > the author clearly states that he owns the copyright and contributes the
>> > work under AL2.
>> >
>>
>> If someone hands me a check for $10 and has an illegible signature on
>> it, I might let that pass. But if someone gives me a check for $10000
>> I would probably insist on a legible signature.
>
> If the illegible signature is the one deposited with the bank, insisting
> on a legible signature wouldn't help much, to the contrary, you might
> not get your money.
>
But if the illegible signature was not authorized, then I get no
money, plus a fine from my bank when the check is returned as "not
collectable". Not sure if it is the same in Germany...
>
>> >> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for
>> >> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
>> >> ways to vote them in as Committers. If someone is making many
>> >> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as
>> >> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
>> >
>> > I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who does
>> > not want to get involved too deeply with the project and does not want
>> > to sign a CLA, yet is willing to contribute his work.
>>
>> You know that these are two different things, yes?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Someone can sign
>> the iCLA but not become a committer and so not have any deeper
>> commitment to participate in the project.
>>
>> Anyhow, if this did come up, I'd try to understand why the person was
>> unwilling to sign the iCLA. Not as a debate or an argument, but to
>> hear their concerns. We might be able to persuade them. But if not,
>> then it is likely that we would need to decline the contribution.
>
> There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it philosophical
> conception, due to history especially not if it's for OOo. If
> contributions are welcome only under iCLA you probably won't see them
> showing up here.
>
I sometimes wonder if we'd have greater acceptance of the iCLA if we
called it something else, a name that did not include "CLA" in it?
-Rob
> Eike
>
> --
> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Ahh.. found it!
The problem is solved in section 5 of the
Apache License:
___________
5. Submission of Contributions.
Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
___________
cheers,
Pedro.
--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
>
> There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it
> philosophical
> conception, due to history especially not if it's for OOo.
> If
> contributions are welcome only under iCLA you probably
> won't see them
> showing up here.
>
> Eike
>
> --
> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private
> communication.
> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96
> 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Rob,
On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 20:11:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I don't
> >> have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has
> >> clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2. But a patch of
> >> 10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance?
> >
> > I wasn't mentioning doubted provenance. I'm talking about cases where
> > the author clearly states that he owns the copyright and contributes the
> > work under AL2.
> >
>
> If someone hands me a check for $10 and has an illegible signature on
> it, I might let that pass. But if someone gives me a check for $10000
> I would probably insist on a legible signature.
If the illegible signature is the one deposited with the bank, insisting
on a legible signature wouldn't help much, to the contrary, you might
not get your money.
> >> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for
> >> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
> >> ways to vote them in as Committers. If someone is making many
> >> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as
> >> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
> >
> > I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who does
> > not want to get involved too deeply with the project and does not want
> > to sign a CLA, yet is willing to contribute his work.
>
> You know that these are two different things, yes?
Yes.
> Someone can sign
> the iCLA but not become a committer and so not have any deeper
> commitment to participate in the project.
>
> Anyhow, if this did come up, I'd try to understand why the person was
> unwilling to sign the iCLA. Not as a debate or an argument, but to
> hear their concerns. We might be able to persuade them. But if not,
> then it is likely that we would need to decline the contribution.
There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it philosophical
conception, due to history especially not if it's for OOo. If
contributions are welcome only under iCLA you probably won't see them
showing up here.
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 16:06:48 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> > Will AOOo accept code contributions under AL2, be it on the mailing
>> > list, as JIRA attachment, or otherwise with consent of the original
>> > author, without the author having signed an iCLA?
>> >
>> > My position on this: yes, it should.
>>
>> Let's reframe the question: Will the project accept code
>> contributions under ALv2 via SVN from any committer?
>>
>> The answer is: We usually operate under CTR. Any other committer can
>> give a veto on your code contribution, for good reasons.
>
> Yes, for technical or design reasons or if s/he suspects something
> fishy.
>
>> I think the same would be true for a patch from a non-committer.
>
> Of course.
>
>> Since only a committer can actually check in the patch, this is really
>> the same situation. Any other committer can veto the merge of the
>> patch.
>>
>> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I don't
>> have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has
>> clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2. But a patch of
>> 10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance?
>
> I wasn't mentioning doubted provenance. I'm talking about cases where
> the author clearly states that he owns the copyright and contributes the
> work under AL2.
>
If someone hands me a check for $10 and has an illegible signature on
it, I might let that pass. But if someone gives me a check for $10000
I would probably insist on a legible signature.
Even if I believe someone is honest and sincere, if we're talking
about a significant piece of IP, then I think we should be getting an
iCLA. An email sent to a list saying you contribute under ALv2 is not
as strong as a signed iCLA.
>> I would not hesitate to veto that. For the in-between cases, I think
>> we discuss the specific case.
>
> Ok.
>
>> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for
>> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
>> ways to vote them in as Committers. If someone is making many
>> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as
>> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
>
> I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who does
> not want to get involved too deeply with the project and does not want
> to sign a CLA, yet is willing to contribute his work.
>
You know that these are two different things, yes? Someone can sign
the iCLA but not become a committer and so not have any deeper
commitment to participate in the project.
Anyhow, if this did come up, I'd try to understand why the person was
unwilling to sign the iCLA. Not as a debate or an argument, but to
hear their concerns. We might be able to persuade them. But if not,
then it is likely that we would need to decline the contribution.
-Rob
> Eike
>
> --
> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Rob,
On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 16:06:48 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > Will AOOo accept code contributions under AL2, be it on the mailing
> > list, as JIRA attachment, or otherwise with consent of the original
> > author, without the author having signed an iCLA?
> >
> > My position on this: yes, it should.
>
> Let's reframe the question: Will the project accept code
> contributions under ALv2 via SVN from any committer?
>
> The answer is: We usually operate under CTR. Any other committer can
> give a veto on your code contribution, for good reasons.
Yes, for technical or design reasons or if s/he suspects something
fishy.
> I think the same would be true for a patch from a non-committer.
Of course.
> Since only a committer can actually check in the patch, this is really
> the same situation. Any other committer can veto the merge of the
> patch.
>
> So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I don't
> have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has
> clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2. But a patch of
> 10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance?
I wasn't mentioning doubted provenance. I'm talking about cases where
the author clearly states that he owns the copyright and contributes the
work under AL2.
> I would not hesitate to veto that. For the in-between cases, I think
> we discuss the specific case.
Ok.
> And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for
> opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
> ways to vote them in as Committers. If someone is making many
> patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as
> a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
I'm taking the occasional savvy contributor into consideration who does
not want to get involved too deeply with the project and does not want
to sign a CLA, yet is willing to contribute his work.
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm going to warm this up, as legal seems to have no definite opinion on
> it and effectively suggests the project has to establish its process and
> decide how it will handle larger contributions. See
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201108.mbox/%3CC23DED33-C4D1-454B-9A52-55281A4144F9@oracle.com%3E
>
> So, only one question:
>
> Will AOOo accept code contributions under AL2, be it on the mailing
> list, as JIRA attachment, or otherwise with consent of the original
> author, without the author having signed an iCLA?
>
> My position on this: yes, it should.
>
Let's reframe the question: Will the project accept code
contributions under ALv2 via SVN from any committer?
The answer is: We usually operate under CTR. Any other committer can
give a veto on your code contribution, for good reasons.
I think the same would be true for a patch from a non-committer.
Since only a committer can actually check in the patch, this is really
the same situation. Any other committer can veto the merge of the
patch.
So I think we take this on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I don't
have problems with a small patch of a few lines where the author has
clearly expressed they are contributing it under ALv2. But a patch of
10,000 lines of code with doubted provenance? I would not hesitate to
veto that. For the in-between cases, I think we discuss the specific
case.
And from a community development perspective, we should be looking for
opportunities to encourage contributors to sign the iCLA and look for
ways to vote them in as Committers. If someone is making many
patches, especially significant ones, and we have not voted them in as
a Committer, then the PPMC is doing something wrong.
> Eike
>
>
> On Friday, 2011-08-12 18:53:41 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>
>> hi Apache mentors,
>>
>> i've got a question as to what extent an ICLA from the copyright
>> holder is required for code contributions.
>>
>> a volunteer who is currently working in GSoC over at LibreOffice
>> (who has not signed an Apache ICLA) has given me permission to
>> contribute a bunch of makefiles that he wrote, with no licensing
>> restriction.
>>
>> now the ICLA contains this paragraph:
>>
>> >7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
>> > You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
>> > Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
>> > any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
>> > related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
>> > are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
>> > "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
>>
>> so it seems to me that an ICLA from the copyright holder is not an
>> absolute requirement to contribute to Apache.
>>
>> is there any restriction in scope or otherwise for this paragraph?
>>
>> what exactly are the process requirements?
>>
>> my assumption is that the Committer must ask the potential
>> contributor whether they actually hold the copyright.
>>
>> i guess "submit it separately" means that it must be its own SVN
>> commit, not mixed with anything the Committer wrote him/herself.
>>
>> is it sufficient to put something like this into the SVN commit message:
>> "Submitted on behalf of a third party: [author name]; no licensing
>> restrictions"
>>
>> is it necessary to ask on the mailing list in every instance?
>>
>> in this case we are talking about ~30 new files, totalling ~2000 lines
>> (of which ~1000 are the boilerplate licensing headers...).
>>
>> regards,
>> michael
>>
>
> --
> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I thought you were given a definite opinion,
at least for all practical purposes: it mainly
depends on whether the contribution in question
is substantial enough to be independently
copyrightable. For smallish bugfix patches,
the answeris no, so there's no need for an iCLA.
And when in doubt about how to answer that question,
request an iCLA anyway. That was the gist of the
thread on legal-discuss@ and has been consistent
with ASF practice spanning almost a decade now.
>________________________________
>From: Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm going to warm this up, as legal seems to have no definite opinion on
>it and effectively suggests the project has to establish its process and
>decide how it will handle larger contributions. See
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201108.mbox/%3CC23DED33-C4D1-454B-9A52-55281A4144F9@oracle.com%3E
>
>So, only one question:
>
>Will AOOo accept code contributions under AL2, be it on the mailing
>list, as JIRA attachment, or otherwise with consent of the original
>author, without the author having signed an iCLA?
>
>My position on this: yes, it should.
>
> Eike
>
>
>On Friday, 2011-08-12 18:53:41 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>
>> hi Apache mentors,
>>
>> i've got a question as to what extent an ICLA from the copyright
>> holder is required for code contributions.
>>
>> a volunteer who is currently working in GSoC over at LibreOffice
>> (who has not signed an Apache ICLA) has given me permission to
>> contribute a bunch of makefiles that he wrote, with no licensing
>> restriction.
>>
>> now the ICLA contains this paragraph:
>>
>> >7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
>> > You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
>> > Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
>> > any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
>> > related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
>> > are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
>> > "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
>>
>> so it seems to me that an ICLA from the copyright holder is not an
>> absolute requirement to contribute to Apache.
>>
>> is there any restriction in scope or otherwise for this paragraph?
>>
>> what exactly are the process requirements?
>>
>> my assumption is that the Committer must ask the potential
>> contributor whether they actually hold the copyright.
>>
>> i guess "submit it separately" means that it must be its own SVN
>> commit, not mixed with anything the Committer wrote him/herself.
>>
>> is it sufficient to put something like this into the SVN commit message:
>> "Submitted on behalf of a third party: [author name]; no licensing
>> restrictions"
>>
>> is it necessary to ask on the mailing list in every instance?
>>
>> in this case we are talking about ~30 new files, totalling ~2000 lines
>> (of which ~1000 are the boilerplate licensing headers...).
>>
>> regards,
>> michael
>>
>
>--
>PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>
>
>
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi,
I'm going to warm this up, as legal seems to have no definite opinion on
it and effectively suggests the project has to establish its process and
decide how it will handle larger contributions. See
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201108.mbox/%3CC23DED33-C4D1-454B-9A52-55281A4144F9@oracle.com%3E
So, only one question:
Will AOOo accept code contributions under AL2, be it on the mailing
list, as JIRA attachment, or otherwise with consent of the original
author, without the author having signed an iCLA?
My position on this: yes, it should.
Eike
On Friday, 2011-08-12 18:53:41 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
> hi Apache mentors,
>
> i've got a question as to what extent an ICLA from the copyright
> holder is required for code contributions.
>
> a volunteer who is currently working in GSoC over at LibreOffice
> (who has not signed an Apache ICLA) has given me permission to
> contribute a bunch of makefiles that he wrote, with no licensing
> restriction.
>
> now the ICLA contains this paragraph:
>
> >7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
> > You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
> > Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
> > any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
> > related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
> > are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
> > "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
>
> so it seems to me that an ICLA from the copyright holder is not an
> absolute requirement to contribute to Apache.
>
> is there any restriction in scope or otherwise for this paragraph?
>
> what exactly are the process requirements?
>
> my assumption is that the Committer must ask the potential
> contributor whether they actually hold the copyright.
>
> i guess "submit it separately" means that it must be its own SVN
> commit, not mixed with anything the Committer wrote him/herself.
>
> is it sufficient to put something like this into the SVN commit message:
> "Submitted on behalf of a third party: [author name]; no licensing
> restrictions"
>
> is it necessary to ask on the mailing list in every instance?
>
> in this case we are talking about ~30 new files, totalling ~2000 lines
> (of which ~1000 are the boilerplate licensing headers...).
>
> regards,
> michael
>
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
RE: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Michael,
Please take this question to legal-discuss@a.o.
No discussion here, please.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Stahl [mailto:mst@openoffice.org]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 09:54
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
hi Apache mentors,
i've got a question as to what extent an ICLA from the copyright holder
is required for code contributions.
a volunteer who is currently working in GSoC over at LibreOffice (who
has not signed an Apache ICLA) has given me permission to contribute a
bunch of makefiles that he wrote, with no licensing restriction.
now the ICLA contains this paragraph:
> 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
> You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
> Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
> any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
> related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
> are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
> "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
so it seems to me that an ICLA from the copyright holder is not an
absolute requirement to contribute to Apache.
is there any restriction in scope or otherwise for this paragraph?
what exactly are the process requirements?
my assumption is that the Committer must ask the potential contributor
whether they actually hold the copyright.
i guess "submit it separately" means that it must be its own SVN commit,
not mixed with anything the Committer wrote him/herself.
is it sufficient to put something like this into the SVN commit message:
"Submitted on behalf of a third party: [author name]; no licensing
restrictions"
is it necessary to ask on the mailing list in every instance?
in this case we are talking about ~30 new files, totalling ~2000 lines
(of which ~1000 are the boilerplate licensing headers...).
regards,
michael
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>.
This would have been something to consider for the (retired) Bluesky
podling, which supposedly had a cyclic pool of student contributors.
Granted, that project had various IP issues, but that one, at least,
would have been solvable...contributions made "on behalf" of members
of a pool of willing contributors.
Don
Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Michael Stahl <ms...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> hi Apache mentors,
>
> i've got a question as to what extent an ICLA from the copyright holder is
> required for code contributions.
>
> a volunteer who is currently working in GSoC over at LibreOffice (who has
> not signed an Apache ICLA) has given me permission to contribute a bunch of
> makefiles that he wrote, with no licensing restriction.
>
Can he simply post this as a patch on the mailing list? Wouldn't that
be simpler, since he would be contributing his original work directly?
> now the ICLA contains this paragraph:
>
>> 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
>> You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
>> Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
>> any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
>> related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
>> are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
>> "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
>
> so it seems to me that an ICLA from the copyright holder is not an absolute
> requirement to contribute to Apache.
>
> is there any restriction in scope or otherwise for this paragraph?
>
> what exactly are the process requirements?
>
> my assumption is that the Committer must ask the potential contributor
> whether they actually hold the copyright.
>
> i guess "submit it separately" means that it must be its own SVN commit, not
> mixed with anything the Committer wrote him/herself.
>
> is it sufficient to put something like this into the SVN commit message:
> "Submitted on behalf of a third party: [author name]; no licensing
> restrictions"
>
> is it necessary to ask on the mailing list in every instance?
>
> in this case we are talking about ~30 new files, totalling ~2000 lines
> (of which ~1000 are the boilerplate licensing headers...).
>
> regards,
> michael
>
>