You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Esteve Fernandez <es...@apache.org> on 2014/11/12 01:28:45 UTC
Re: using the apache cla for another project
Thank you all for your responses.
We're finally going to put the CLA in place and start requiring
contributors to sign it. However, we at OSRF wondered why ASF only requires
committers to sign the CLA, but not external contributors.
We see that it's easier for contributors to submit contributions by not
making them sign the CLA and also that it's covered by clause 5 of the
Apache 2 license. So, doesn't that clause also cover contributions made by
committers? We want to make our contributors' lifes easier too, so if we
can only require committers to sign the CLA, that'd be make it all much
simpler.
Thanks again.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Esteve Fernandez wrote:
> > ....we're thinking of adopting a CLA model for contributions. Given that
> at the
> > OSRF we already release our code under the Apache 2.0 license and that
> > we're a nonprofit and public organization like the Apache Software
> > Foundation, we thought of following a similar approach to contributions.
>
> Using a CLA for contributions like Apache does is one model. Directly
> relying on OSI-approved FOSS licenses for contributions from known
> contributors is another, easier way.
>
> In OpenMRS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that distributes open source medical
> records software around the world, we intend to accept almost any
> FOSS-licensed contribution without using a CLA. We will rely on FOSS
> "license compatibility" and a NOTICE file to ensure that the software
> aggregations we distribute can actually be used. For compatibility
> analysis, we rely on OSI, FSF and Creative Commons for their advice rather
> than publishing our own third party license policies.
>
> Please see attached. Your feedback is welcomed.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esteve Fernandez [mailto:esteve@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:23 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: using the apache cla for another project
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm an Apache Thrift PMC member and also work for the Open Source Robotics
> Foundation (http://osrfoundation.org/), where we're thinking of adopting
> a CLA model for contributions. Given that at the OSRF we already release
> our code under the Apache 2.0 license and that we're a nonprofit and public
> organization like the Apache Software Foundation, we thought of following a
> similar approach to contributions. We'd like to use the same CLAs because
> of the ASF approach to contributions is widely accepted in the opensource
> world, which would help us lower the barrier to contribute. However we have
> a question about the preface and the overall text of the ICLA, namely this
> part:
>
> "You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your
> present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. In return,
> the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary
> to the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws
> in effect at the time of the Contribution. Except for the license granted
> herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the
> Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your
> Contributions."
>
> does this mean that if we (OSRF) use the same wording as the ASF ICLA for
> our CLA, we can only relicense a contribution as long as it's under another
> opensource license? (i.e. consistent with our nonprofit and public status)
> We're happy with the Apache 2.0 license, but we wonder if at some point we
> want to use a different opensource license (e.g. MIT, Clear BSD, etc.) we
> won't be able to do so for contributions.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: using the apache cla for another project
Posted by Esteve Fernandez <es...@apache.org>.
Thank you both.
Is the ASF policy to require committers to sign a the CLA just a
convenience to have them on file before assigning an ID or is there a legal
reason for that? Given that OSRF uses the same license as ASF and has
similar goals, we try to mimic as much of its process as we can so
contributors familiar with ASF have it easier to submit contributions.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:
> Jim Jagielski summarized the Apache ICLA policy as follows:
> > Once a person receives commit privs, however, it is ASF policy that they
> have
> > a signed iCLA on file.
>
> Perhaps I'm being too simple about it, but I've always viewed the Apache
> ICLA as primarily an application for an Apache contributor ID that allows
> the named individual to post to Apache repositories and websites. That's
> all
> the Apache secretary does when he processes those ICLAs. The secretary
> assigns an Apache ID and files the ICLA in our records. End of story. There
> is, at that moment, no contribution to consider licensing, no provenance to
> verify.
>
> The Apache ICLA says also, in essence, "everything I subsequently
> contribute
> is for ASF to use for whatever." It is perhaps a shorthand way of applying
> the notice "Licensed under Apache License 2.0" to every one of the
> copyrighted works posted by that contributor under that ID to any Apache
> repository. It sort of accomplishes the same goal, but I don't call the
> ICLA
> a license.
>
> If a project uses a CLA-like procedure to register contributors, that's a
> good thing, but you needn't call it a C(License)A. Instead you can call it
> a
> CA or an "Account Agreement" (AA). You can make it simply an agreement to
> obey your posted Contribution Policy.
>
> That's how I sign up for social network accounts where I'm free to post all
> sorts of copyrighted works. That's what I thought that OpenMRS does when it
> gives people like me accounts on its website. At OpenMRS I agreed to the
> posted policy that "everything I contribute is under CC-BY, except code
> which is under MPL 2.0 HD." That is because of the posted OpenMRS
> Contribution Policy, not because it says so explicitly in some Contributor
> License Agreement I signed.
>
> I didn't need a CLA in any of the other organizations to which I
> contribute.
> But I did easily sign up for an ID everywhere. And I agreed to obey their
> posted contribution policies.
>
> "License In == License Out" takes care of the rest.
>
> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> "If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:54 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; Michael Downey
> Subject: Re: using the apache cla for another project
>
> Since code is under the ALv2, there is an implied and explicit CLA in that
> license itself; so with the concept of License In == License Out, we do not
> require that all contributors sign an iCLA.
>
> Once a person receives commit privs, however, it is ASF policy that they
> have a signed iCLA on file.
>
> > On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Esteve Fernandez <es...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you all for your responses.
> >
> > We're finally going to put the CLA in place and start requiring
> contributors to sign it. However, we at OSRF wondered why ASF only requires
> committers to sign the CLA, but not external contributors.
> >
> > We see that it's easier for contributors to submit contributions by not
> making them sign the CLA and also that it's covered by clause 5 of the
> Apache 2 license. So, doesn't that clause also cover contributions made by
> committers? We want to make our contributors' lifes easier too, so if we
> can
> only require committers to sign the CLA, that'd be make it all much
> simpler.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> > Esteve Fernandez wrote:
> > > ....we're thinking of adopting a CLA model for contributions. Given
> > > that at the OSRF we already release our code under the Apache 2.0
> > > license and that we're a nonprofit and public organization like the
> > > Apache Software Foundation, we thought of following a similar approach
> to contributions.
> >
> > Using a CLA for contributions like Apache does is one model. Directly
> relying on OSI-approved FOSS licenses for contributions from known
> contributors is another, easier way.
> >
> > In OpenMRS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that distributes open source medical
> records software around the world, we intend to accept almost any
> FOSS-licensed contribution without using a CLA. We will rely on FOSS
> "license compatibility" and a NOTICE file to ensure that the software
> aggregations we distribute can actually be used. For compatibility
> analysis,
> we rely on OSI, FSF and Creative Commons for their advice rather than
> publishing our own third party license policies.
> >
> > Please see attached. Your feedback is welcomed.
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Esteve Fernandez [mailto:esteve@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:23 AM
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: using the apache cla for another project
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm an Apache Thrift PMC member and also work for the Open Source
> Robotics
> Foundation (http://osrfoundation.org/), where we're thinking of adopting a
> CLA model for contributions. Given that at the OSRF we already release our
> code under the Apache 2.0 license and that we're a nonprofit and public
> organization like the Apache Software Foundation, we thought of following a
> similar approach to contributions. We'd like to use the same CLAs because
> of
> the ASF approach to contributions is widely accepted in the opensource
> world, which would help us lower the barrier to contribute. However we have
> a question about the preface and the overall text of the ICLA, namely this
> part:
> >
> > "You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your
> present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. In return,
> the
> Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to
> the
> public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in
> effect at the time of the Contribution. Except for the license granted
> herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the
> Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your
> Contributions."
> >
> > does this mean that if we (OSRF) use the same wording as the ASF ICLA for
> our CLA, we can only relicense a contribution as long as it's under another
> opensource license? (i.e. consistent with our nonprofit and public status)
> We're happy with the Apache 2.0 license, but we wonder if at some point we
> want to use a different opensource license (e.g. MIT, Clear BSD, etc.) we
> won't be able to do so for contributions.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
RE: using the apache cla for another project
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Jim Jagielski summarized the Apache ICLA policy as follows:
> Once a person receives commit privs, however, it is ASF policy that they
have
> a signed iCLA on file.
Perhaps I'm being too simple about it, but I've always viewed the Apache
ICLA as primarily an application for an Apache contributor ID that allows
the named individual to post to Apache repositories and websites. That's all
the Apache secretary does when he processes those ICLAs. The secretary
assigns an Apache ID and files the ICLA in our records. End of story. There
is, at that moment, no contribution to consider licensing, no provenance to
verify.
The Apache ICLA says also, in essence, "everything I subsequently contribute
is for ASF to use for whatever." It is perhaps a shorthand way of applying
the notice "Licensed under Apache License 2.0" to every one of the
copyrighted works posted by that contributor under that ID to any Apache
repository. It sort of accomplishes the same goal, but I don't call the ICLA
a license.
If a project uses a CLA-like procedure to register contributors, that's a
good thing, but you needn't call it a C(License)A. Instead you can call it a
CA or an "Account Agreement" (AA). You can make it simply an agreement to
obey your posted Contribution Policy.
That's how I sign up for social network accounts where I'm free to post all
sorts of copyrighted works. That's what I thought that OpenMRS does when it
gives people like me accounts on its website. At OpenMRS I agreed to the
posted policy that "everything I contribute is under CC-BY, except code
which is under MPL 2.0 HD." That is because of the posted OpenMRS
Contribution Policy, not because it says so explicitly in some Contributor
License Agreement I signed.
I didn't need a CLA in any of the other organizations to which I contribute.
But I did easily sign up for an ID everywhere. And I agreed to obey their
posted contribution policies.
"License In == License Out" takes care of the rest.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
"If this were legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:54 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; Michael Downey
Subject: Re: using the apache cla for another project
Since code is under the ALv2, there is an implied and explicit CLA in that
license itself; so with the concept of License In == License Out, we do not
require that all contributors sign an iCLA.
Once a person receives commit privs, however, it is ASF policy that they
have a signed iCLA on file.
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Esteve Fernandez <es...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your responses.
>
> We're finally going to put the CLA in place and start requiring
contributors to sign it. However, we at OSRF wondered why ASF only requires
committers to sign the CLA, but not external contributors.
>
> We see that it's easier for contributors to submit contributions by not
making them sign the CLA and also that it's covered by clause 5 of the
Apache 2 license. So, doesn't that clause also cover contributions made by
committers? We want to make our contributors' lifes easier too, so if we can
only require committers to sign the CLA, that'd be make it all much simpler.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:
> Esteve Fernandez wrote:
> > ....we're thinking of adopting a CLA model for contributions. Given
> > that at the OSRF we already release our code under the Apache 2.0
> > license and that we're a nonprofit and public organization like the
> > Apache Software Foundation, we thought of following a similar approach
to contributions.
>
> Using a CLA for contributions like Apache does is one model. Directly
relying on OSI-approved FOSS licenses for contributions from known
contributors is another, easier way.
>
> In OpenMRS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that distributes open source medical
records software around the world, we intend to accept almost any
FOSS-licensed contribution without using a CLA. We will rely on FOSS
"license compatibility" and a NOTICE file to ensure that the software
aggregations we distribute can actually be used. For compatibility analysis,
we rely on OSI, FSF and Creative Commons for their advice rather than
publishing our own third party license policies.
>
> Please see attached. Your feedback is welcomed.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esteve Fernandez [mailto:esteve@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:23 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: using the apache cla for another project
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm an Apache Thrift PMC member and also work for the Open Source Robotics
Foundation (http://osrfoundation.org/), where we're thinking of adopting a
CLA model for contributions. Given that at the OSRF we already release our
code under the Apache 2.0 license and that we're a nonprofit and public
organization like the Apache Software Foundation, we thought of following a
similar approach to contributions. We'd like to use the same CLAs because of
the ASF approach to contributions is widely accepted in the opensource
world, which would help us lower the barrier to contribute. However we have
a question about the preface and the overall text of the ICLA, namely this
part:
>
> "You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your
present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. In return, the
Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to the
public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in
effect at the time of the Contribution. Except for the license granted
herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the
Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your
Contributions."
>
> does this mean that if we (OSRF) use the same wording as the ASF ICLA for
our CLA, we can only relicense a contribution as long as it's under another
opensource license? (i.e. consistent with our nonprofit and public status)
We're happy with the Apache 2.0 license, but we wonder if at some point we
want to use a different opensource license (e.g. MIT, Clear BSD, etc.) we
won't be able to do so for contributions.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: using the apache cla for another project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Since code is under the ALv2, there is an implied and explicit CLA
in that license itself; so with the concept of License In == License Out,
we do not require that all contributors sign an iCLA.
Once a person receives commit privs, however, it is ASF policy that
they have a signed iCLA on file.
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Esteve Fernandez <es...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your responses.
>
> We're finally going to put the CLA in place and start requiring contributors to sign it. However, we at OSRF wondered why ASF only requires committers to sign the CLA, but not external contributors.
>
> We see that it's easier for contributors to submit contributions by not making them sign the CLA and also that it's covered by clause 5 of the Apache 2 license. So, doesn't that clause also cover contributions made by committers? We want to make our contributors' lifes easier too, so if we can only require committers to sign the CLA, that'd be make it all much simpler.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Esteve Fernandez wrote:
> > ....we're thinking of adopting a CLA model for contributions. Given that at the
> > OSRF we already release our code under the Apache 2.0 license and that
> > we're a nonprofit and public organization like the Apache Software
> > Foundation, we thought of following a similar approach to contributions.
>
> Using a CLA for contributions like Apache does is one model. Directly relying on OSI-approved FOSS licenses for contributions from known contributors is another, easier way.
>
> In OpenMRS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that distributes open source medical records software around the world, we intend to accept almost any FOSS-licensed contribution without using a CLA. We will rely on FOSS "license compatibility" and a NOTICE file to ensure that the software aggregations we distribute can actually be used. For compatibility analysis, we rely on OSI, FSF and Creative Commons for their advice rather than publishing our own third party license policies.
>
> Please see attached. Your feedback is welcomed.
>
> /Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esteve Fernandez [mailto:esteve@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:23 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: using the apache cla for another project
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm an Apache Thrift PMC member and also work for the Open Source Robotics Foundation (http://osrfoundation.org/), where we're thinking of adopting a CLA model for contributions. Given that at the OSRF we already release our code under the Apache 2.0 license and that we're a nonprofit and public organization like the Apache Software Foundation, we thought of following a similar approach to contributions. We'd like to use the same CLAs because of the ASF approach to contributions is widely accepted in the opensource world, which would help us lower the barrier to contribute. However we have a question about the preface and the overall text of the ICLA, namely this part:
>
> "You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution. Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions."
>
> does this mean that if we (OSRF) use the same wording as the ASF ICLA for our CLA, we can only relicense a contribution as long as it's under another opensource license? (i.e. consistent with our nonprofit and public status) We're happy with the Apache 2.0 license, but we wonder if at some point we want to use a different opensource license (e.g. MIT, Clear BSD, etc.) we won't be able to do so for contributions.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org