Re: Experience with Contribution Agreements

Cool. Always nice to see communities in sync.

Craig

On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:18 AM, eduardo pelegri-llopart wrote:

> Perfect.  Thanks.  It's always very useful to be able to borrow best
> practices from other communities.
>
>  - eduard/o
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected] 
> > wrote:
>> Hi Eduardo,
>>
>> there is a list of committers (they have all submitted the ICLA) and
>> the page also contains the contributors (non-committers),
>> that signed the individual CLA:
>> http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
>>
>> (search for "Persons with signed CLAs but are not committers")
>>
>> HTH,
>> Matthias
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:12 AM, eduardo pelegri-llopart
>> <pelegri-MzsY6bMMCtZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Craig!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Craig L Russell
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Eduardo,
>>>>
>>>> Well, I remember you from Sun. ;-)
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>> I think the situation isn't well-understood. Once you sign the  
>>>> ICLA, your
>>>> contributions are covered. If you don't want future contributions  
>>>> to be
>>>> covered by the agreement, don't contribute any more.
>>>
>>>> If you have a test case for a bug you submit, and don't want the  
>>>> test case
>>>> to become part of your contribution, there's a tick box on the  
>>>> bug report
>>>> that says "this is not a contribution".
>>>
>>> Didn't know about that tick box; seems a good idea.
>>>
>>>> What is the situation that you need covered?
>>>
>>> I can think of two cases.  One is an unintentional contribution.   
>>> This
>>> seems covered by the ASF ICLA clause about "intentionally  
>>> submitted",
>>> which is not present in Sun's SCA.  The other is more of a  
>>> "statement"
>>> where the individual might want to indicate that it no longer is
>>> supportive of the institution, but there are other ways to do that.
>>>
>>> BTW, is there a public list of everybody that has signed an ICLA/ 
>>> CCLA?
>>>  Something like Sun's [4].
>>>
>>> [4] http://sca.java.net/CA_signatories.htm
>>>
>>> For completeness, the current version of Oracle's CA is OCA 1.6 [5].
>>> I believe it is the same as SCA 1.5, with s/Sun/Oracle/, but not  
>>> 100%
>>> sure.  It has several clauses not in the ICLA, including one  
>>> specific
>>> to commercial entities indicates "Any contribution we make available
>>> under any license will also be made available under a suitable FSF
>>> (Free Software Foundation) or OSI (Open Source Initiative) approved
>>> license."  - that, of course, would not apply to ASF.
>>>
>>> [5] http://oss.oracle.com/oca.pdf
>>>
>>>  - eduard/o
>>>
>>>>> [1]http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>>>> [2]http://oss.oracle.com/oca-1.3.pdf
>>>>> [3]http://oss.oracle.com/oca-1.4.pdf
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
Chair, OpenJPA PMC
[email protected] http://db.apache.org/jdo