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 .

Author: Mezikinos Dailkree
Country: Paraguay
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 18 March 2008
Pages: 489
PDF File Size: 20.21 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.81 Mb
ISBN: 466-1-88547-216-1
Downloads: 1341
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Jubar

I am spache a lawyer. An unlimited license unlocks distribution rights like those the owner has, on a non-exclusive basis.

It is not as hard as you think. Not a convenient web-based click-through process, to be sure. 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 has previously been cleared with Apache’s legal team for a long ago discussion with Incubator.

In Defense of Contributor License Agreements | Julien Ponge

This is weird because the same changeset represented as a patch file attachment presumably wouldn’t require a CLA, would iclw require a clear expression of intent. What happens the other way around?

In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource. But one need not be a committer to contribute code to an Apache Software Foundation project.


We don’t need a CLA on file to accept contributions from non-committers. It is a perfectly effective license to use for any open source project where the community has no expectation of contribution on the part of users of the code, as it conveys all the rights you need to work with the code independently of others.

Some may sadly have died, too. In a apachd 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.

Apache contributors need not sign a CLA

Did the contributor reuse third-party works? Pull Requests are maybe the world’s purest form of intentional submission to the Licensor of a Contribution for inclusion in the Work. A CLA is probably overkill if you are running a project as an individual free of employer restrictions. Lawyers dislike blurred lines or like, depending on what side of a case they are.

Poisoned contributions I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member. People and organizations propose code changes to the original project maintainers. More generally, what is essential is clear intent by the author to contribute under the Apache license terms, and clear record of that intent.

Apache contributors need not sign a CLA

The Apache License v2 ALv2 is the best aapche among non-reciprocal licenses for new projects, mostly because it includes explicit patent licensing.

You are not the same special case as Apache and ic,a deserve nor will ivla granted the same grace. If you are really worried about certification of origin, use the signed-off-by process using a Developer Certificate of Origin. It is a good practice to collect CLAs in the form of scanned documents sent by email. In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit apachhe and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution.


The project license terms cannot be changed unless all contributors agree. Menu Close Home Subscribe. Of course we have, but one shall not forget what a license is meant to be. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions. Here is my modest attempt at debunking some myths and clarifying a few things. Once upon a time, an individual, a group of individuals or a company decides to publish its work as an open source project.

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 KDE Project re-licensing effort. And that signature process does require physically printing and signing a PDF, or the digital signature equivalent. Great, so do I really need a CLA?