Site Loader

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: Moogujind Zulkilabar
Country: French Guiana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 6 February 2016
Pages: 149
PDF File Size: 11.20 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.40 Mb
ISBN: 756-9-79192-551-6
Downloads: 15496
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mezisar

Some may sadly have died, too. Many people regard them as redundant, but since the beneficiary is a very stable and safe US public charity there are rarely complaints about them getting these direct grants of rights.

We don’t need a CLA on file to accept contributions from non-committers. In most jurisdiction and by default, the contributor retains copyright unless an explicit copyright transfer or license agreement has been established between both parties.

Of course we have, but one shall not forget what a license is meant to be. Interesting projects attract contributions. You are not the ixla special case as Apache and neither deserve nor will be granted the same grace. 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.

The Apache Software Foundation has an individual contributor license agreementwhich is very popular. Licenses do not clarify much either on what happens when a contribution knocks at a project door. Menu Close Home Subscribe.


We have archives on all of our communication channels. Now recall what I said above: 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. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.

The sections that I find especially interesting are the following ones.

Apache contributors need not sign a CLA

You represent that Your Contribution submissions include complete idla 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.

Contributors explictly grant a license to the upstream project maintainers to use contributions.

Some contributors may be hard to contact a few years later. You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. 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.

But… we are good folks! No one is entitled to have their contributions accepted and projects and project participants can gate their acceptance beyond the requirements of the Foundation further on whatever they want. Poisoned contributions I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member. So having any form of contributor agreement comes with a significant social cost.

In Defense of Contributor License Agreements | Julien Ponge

You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. Sometimes things go bad, and CLAs can be very useful tools in such situations. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. 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.


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. Thanks a lot Pierre for triggering this response that I had promised you, although I understand we may only agree to disagree: 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 question Here’s the question: You, however, will not be committing to protect the public apaceh or the Apache bylaws. So next time you see a CLA: Once upon a time, an individual, a group ilca individuals or a company decides to publish its work as an open source project.

This is weird because the same changeset represented as a patch file attachment presumably wouldn’t require a CLA, would only require a clear expression of intent. This is, I think, the first key point.