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):||11 May 2007|
|PDF File Size:||12.25 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
What is the license governing the contribution? Why qpache earth do you suggest they are almost the same? Great I hear you say, so they pick up a license according to how much freedom they want to give to the recipients of their work. We have archives on all of our communication channels. I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member. 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.
Apcahe CLA is probably overkill if you are running a project as an individual free of employer restrictions. You are not apqche same special case as Apache and neither deserve nor will be granted the same icls. Some may sadly have died, too. Grant of Patent License. Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions.
Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under new terms in the future, even if the contributor is out of reach. You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. 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.
In a thread on Twitter, the CTO at Chef Software defended the company against the accusation from an open source contributor that it demands copyright assignment from contributors.
We don’t need the silly checkbox. Sorry, your apcahe cannot share posts by email. Most software developers are well-rounded and honest individuals making worthy contributions. This is, I think, the first key point.
This clause is subject to adaptations outside the ASFbut it nevertheless specificies that it is not a copyright transfer. My advice is that you use a CLA for any project that meets these conditions:.
You represent that Your Contribution submissions include complete details of any third-party license or other restriction including, but not limited to, related patents and trademarks of which you are personally aware and which are associated with any part of Your Contributions. You, however, will not be committing to protect the public benefit or the Apache bylaws.
A rare exception is section 5 of the Apache Software License v2 that says:. Countless times, he received contribution proposals. Post apacche not sent – check your email addresses! We do ask for a license, as Apache license requires. But ALv2 gives you full permission in advance to do anything you choose with the code, almost as if you owned it.
Their avenue for contribution more involves composing patch files and submitting these via post to an email list or attachment in ifla issue tracker.
Plenty of developers refuse to sign individual contributor agreements of any kind and plenty of corporations have legal processes that make signing corporate contributor agreements at best burdensome and at worst impossible.
A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the KDE Project re-licensing effort. Since Git is only a mirror, these pull requests flow through a process of being linked from an issue tracker entry. Must, further, that signature happen via a PDF?
I hope to have demystified some myths on the usefulness of contributor license agreements. In particular, they provide permissions to make derivative works.
Poisoned contributions I once was chatting with a kcla who is an Apache Software Foundation member. 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.
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.
If you are really worried about certification of origin, use the signed-off-by process using a Developer Certificate of Origin. While they are not practical for every project that iclaa may create, I believe that they shall not be overlooked either.
However, there is a HUGE difference between an assignment and a license. 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. Indeed, most people aren’t committers, most people don’t become committers, and those who do become committers earn that rarified icoa by first contributing.
But… we are good folks! What happens the other way around? 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 even if the assignment includes an irrevocable license in return. You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above license.
Once upon a time, an individual, a group of individuals or a company decides to publish its work as an open source project. Conceptually this is like attaching a patch file to the issue tracker entry, except representing the patch file in a radically more friendly and compelling way.
But one need not be a committer to contribute code to an Apache Software Foundation project.
Apache contributors need not sign a CLA
I am not a lawyer. Licenses do not clarify much either on what happens when a contribution knocks at a project door. Neither of them is a copyright assignment; they are just broad copyright licenses with no limits on use or relicensing. Upon contribution acceptance, the resulting software published by the upstream project is now in reality a joint-copyright effort. The question Here’s the question: Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works.