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 July 2007|
|PDF File Size:||17.15 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.52 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Background Suppose you are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Foundation.
Why on earth do you suggest they are almost the same? Pull Requests are maybe the world’s purest form of intentional submission to the Licensor of a Contribution for inclusion in the Work. You don’t need my analysis I’m not a lawyer. Did the contributor reuse third-party works? We do ask for a license, as Apache license requires. Social coding and all that. The sections that I find especially interesting are the following ones. Requiring a contributor license agreement is a sign that you intend to sustain apavhe project in the long run with responsible practices regarding intellectual property management.
Their avenue for contribution more involves composing patch files and submitting these via post to an email list or attachment in an issue tracker. Licenses do not clarify much either on what happens when a contribution knocks at a project door.
And that signature process does require physically printing and signing a PDF, or the digital signature equivalent. But a company is not. 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. Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation, etc. No printing, no signing, no PDFS, no hassle.
Must, further, that signature happen via a PDF? 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. The Apache 2 license itself specifies. 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.
An unlimited license unlocks distribution rights like those the owner has, on a non-exclusive basis. You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation.
Suppose you’ve also realized that Git and GitHub or even GitLab are radically more satisfying and open tooling than is Subversion. While they are not practical for every project that you may apacge, I believe that they shall not be overlooked either.
It is implicitly and culturally implied that by doing so, one publishes changes under the same conditions as the original license. In a thread on Aache, the CTO at Chef Software defended the company against the accusation from an open source contributor that it demands copyright assignment from contributors. Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under apavhe terms in the ila, even if the contributor is out of reach.
I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member. Things can go bad There are many case of long-lived open source projects for which the lack of aapche handling of contributions revealed to be an issue.
Great, so do I really need a CLA? 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. As always in this blog I speak only for myself and not for my employer, organizations with which I work, or anyone else.
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements | Julien Ponge
A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the KDE Project re-licensing effort. Otherwise, use your gut feeling. Next, push the CLA on your project website, and ensure that every contribution that you get is from someone who signed it. But… we are good folks! They’re a detailed, technical request that the Licensor include a specific changeset in the Work. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Sometimes things go bad, and CLAs can be very useful tools in such situations. Interesting projects attract contributions. In particular, they provide permissions to make derivative works. Post was not sent – check your email addresses! While an open source license gives permissions to project recipients, a contributor license agreement clarifies the terms and scope of contributions being made back to such project.
Suppose you are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Foundation. A rare exception is section 5 of the Apache Software License v2 that says:.
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements
Pretty much every other open source apacue is happy to treat the act of contribution as sufficient representation of a right to contribute, but early in the life of ASF discussion involving certain corporate participants led to the application of these CLAs to contributions.
There are instances of Apache projects intaking code contributions via Pull Requests on their GitHub mirrors.
You will at best chill contribution, even if you get away with for a while. People and organizations propose code changes to the original project icpa.
Compelling web-based user interfaces, those are going to be a big transformative thing someday. The Apache Software Foundation has an individual contributor license agreementwhich is very popular.
In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary iccla the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution. 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.
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 xpache with Apache’s legal team for a long ago discussion with Incubator. I do not hold the truth, if any, so feel free to comment below! In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource.