In which I observe that the Apache Software Foundation does not require Offering a patch file in this way does not entail signing the ICLA. The Apache License v2 (ALv2) is the best choice among But also don’t copy Apache’s ICLA/CCLA as that was not their intent when they. The Apache Software Foundation. Individual Contributor License Agreement (” Agreement”) V Thank you for your interest in .
|Published (Last):||26 February 2015|
|PDF File Size:||13.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And that signature process does require physically printing and signing a PDF, or the digital signature equivalent. Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under new terms in the future, even if the contributor is out of reach.
Can we accept pull requests from GitHub resolved November Apache CouchDb commit policy Roy on contributions and git that opinion comes from me speaking as a board member and author of the Apache License, and apachf previously been cleared with Apache’s legal team for a long ago discussion with Incubator. Requiring a contributor license agreement is a sign that you intend to sustain your project in the long run with responsible practices regarding intellectual property management.
You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. No printing, no signing, no PDFS, no hassle. This clause is subject to adaptations outside the ASFbut it nevertheless specificies that it is not a copyright transfer.
It is a good practice to collect CLAs in the form of scanned documents sent by email.
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements
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.
That’s why contributions via attachments in Bugzilla, or JIRA, or post to an email list, or iicla all work. Since Git is only a mirror, these pull requests flow through a process of being linked from an issue tracker entry. A CLA in practice It is not as hard as you think.
Suppose you are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Foundation. Things can go bad There are many case of long-lived open source projects for which the lack of clear-cut handling of contributions revealed to be an issue. Upon contribution acceptance, the resulting software published by the upstream project is now in reality a joint-copyright effort. The lack of a CLA is not much on an issue for the vast majority of projects, especially when using a permissive license such as the Apache Software License v2 or an MIT -style license.
This raises a few questions, including: You, however, will not be committing to protect the public benefit or the Apache bylaws. And this is where the story ends for licenses: For as much as I hate all forms of bureaucracy, I feel that CLAs are being mistaken by many fellow open source developers. Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions.
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. The project license terms cannot be changed unless all contributors agree. If you are really worried about certification of origin, use the signed-off-by process using a Developer Certificate of Origin. Sometimes they will also permit re-licensing, or include patent protection clauses so that you cannot both abide to the license terms and threaten to use patents against copyright holders and recipients. Evil maintainers with hidden agendas reveal themselves apahe how they deal with a community, not by requiring you to sign a CLA.
The contribution stays yours. The question Here’s the question: The sections that I find especially interesting are the following ones.
It is not the first time that I saw complaints or suspicion against CLAs. Accepting contributions on sole technical merits is sometimes not enough… License lock A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the Apqche Project re-licensing effort. Great, so do I really need a CLA?
All the same, they convey rights as broad as a copyright assignment would do, except without the exclusivity that one would create. Next, push the CLA on your project website, and ensure that every contribution that you get is from someone who signed it. Countless times, he received contribution proposals.
An assignment assigns the legal power to control distribution of the work to some other entity, such that you no longer have that power yourself cila if the assignment includes an irrevocable license in return.
Contributors Licence Agreement (CLA)
There are many case of long-lived open source projects for which the lack of clear-cut handling of contributions apche to be an issue. The Apache License v2 ALv2 is the best choice among non-reciprocal licenses for new projects, mostly because it includes explicit patent licensing. Neither of them is a copyright assignment; they are just broad copyright licenses with no apaxhe on use or relicensing.
An unlimited license unlocks distribution rights like those the owner has, on a non-exclusive basis.
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements | Julien Ponge
They are not Committers. What happens the other way around? As for assignment vs unlimited licensing; I disagree.