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):||15 February 2017|
|PDF File Size:||3.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.34 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Menu Close Home Subscribe. In particular, they provide permissions to make derivative works. Conclusion I hope to have demystified some myths on the usefulness of contributor license agreements.
Contributors Licence Agreement
Some contributors may be hard to contact a few years later. And so the analogous intellectual property posture to adopt via a vis these contributors is not to require that they sign ICLAs. A CLA in practice It is not as hard as you think.
Here is my modest attempt at debunking some ifla and clarifying a few things. Grant of Copyright License. Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache License version 2. You, however, will not be committing to protect the public benefit or the Apache bylaws.
My advice is that you use a CLA for any project that meets these conditions: Countless times, he received contribution proposals. You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your zpache and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation.
Apache License Yes, Apache CLA No | Meshed Insights Ltd
The obligation to seek permission in advance to contribute is sufficiently burdensome that the Linux kernel community devised a process to avoid it while still satisfying conservative corporate participants. But… we are good folks!
Plenty of lcla refuse to sign individual contributor agreements of any kind apzche plenty of corporations have legal processes that make signing corporate contributor agreements at best burdensome and at worst impossible. They are merely contributors, expressing an intent to contribute something specific. And that signature process does require physically printing and signing a PDF, or the digital signature equivalent.
Since Git is only a mirror, these pull requests flow through a process of being linked from an issue tracker entry. Neither of them is a copyright assignment; they are just broad alache licenses with no limits on use or relicensing. Evil maintainers with hidden agendas reveal themselves in how they deal with a community, not by requiring you to sign a CLA.
Now recall what I said above: 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.
Apahe avenue for contribution more involves composing patch files and submitting these via post to an email list or attachment in an issue tracker. It is a good practice to collect CLAs in the form of scanned documents sent by email. This is, I think, apxche first key point. 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. So having any form of contributor agreement comes with a significant social cost.
I am not a lawyer.
Most software developers are well-rounded and honest individuals making worthy contributions. More generally, what is essential is clear intent by the author to contribute under the Apache license terms, and clear record of that intent.
The Apache License v2 ALv2 is the best choice among non-reciprocal licenses for new projects, mostly because it includes explicit patent licensing. Social coding and all that. Thanks a lot Pierre for triggering this response that I had promised you, although I understand we may only agree to disagree: People and organizations propose code changes to the original project maintainers.
This may sound funny at first, but this clause just lifts support duties from the contributor. Otherwise, use your gut feeling. Suppose cila are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Iclz.
They may be doing so to achieve sufficient comfort that in their adding the third-party contribution to the repository they, the Commiters, are themselves fulfilling their obligations under their agreement to the CLA.
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 Apachr Software License v2 or an MIT -style license. Background Suppose you are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Foundation.
Upon contribution acceptance, the resulting software published by the upstream project is now in reality a joint-copyright effort. A rare exception is section 5 of the Apache Software License v2 that says: This tooling lowers the barrier to entry for someone who isn’t a committer to fork your project, develop virtuous improvement in a feature branch, and offer this change, propose that it become part of the software product, via awesome artifacts called “Merge Requests” or “Pull Requests”.
Same problem with company contributions: