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):||11 September 2009|
|PDF File Size:||8.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.83 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Apache License Yes, Apache CLA No | Meshed Insights Ltd
There are many case of long-lived open source projects for which the lack of clear-cut handling of contributions revealed to be an issue.
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. Zpache 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.
We just need a clear intent by the author to apwche under our normal terms.
Apache contributors need not sign a CLA
Conceptually apavhe is like attaching a patch file to the issue tracker entry, except representing the patch file in a radically apachr friendly and compelling way.
I hope to have demystified some myths on the usefulness of contributor license agreements. They actually are copyright and patent license agreements as they grant expansive licenses to copyrights and patents, even though you are correct that they icoa themselves as Contributor Agreements.
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. No printing, no signing, no PDFS, no hassle. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Sometimes things go bad, and CLAs can be very useful tools in such situations.
Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache License version 2.
But one need not be a committer to contribute code to an Apache Software Foundation project. Understand that projects developed at the Apache Software Foundation are licensed under the terms and conditions of the Apache License version 2. However, there is a HUGE difference between apadhe assignment and a license. Their avenue for contribution more involves composing patch files and submitting these via post ivla an email list or attachment in an issue tracker.
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. And so the analogous intellectual property posture to adopt via a vis these contributors is not to require that they sign ICLAs. The question Apche the question: 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.
Contributors Licence Agreement (CLA)
All the same, they convey rights as broad as a copyright assignment would do, except without the exclusivity that one would create. 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.
People and organizations propose code changes to the original project maintainers. Now recall what I said above: Non-committers have only read access to Subversion. 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.
This clause is subject to adaptations outside the ASFbut it nevertheless specificies that it is not a copyright transfer. You don’t need Apache’s analysis either The Apache 2 license itself specifies 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.
Pretty much every other open source community 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.
Here is my modest attempt at debunking some myths and clarifying a few things. We have archives on all of our communication channels. In particular, they provide permissions to make derivative works.
apwche Why on earth do you suggest they are almost the same? You will at best chill contribution, even if you get away with for a while.
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements
It is not as hard as you think. An Apache legal email list thread occasioned by this blog post specifically so nice apzche this email list is open participation and open archives. An unlimited license unlocks distribution rights like those the owner has, on a non-exclusive basis.
So having any form of contributor agreement comes with a significant social cost. It serves as the basis for many other projects, including Scala, Square projects, Twitter projects and many more.
You are right that the C CLA is not necessary when contributions are made under the Apache license itself, but they might be useful for record keeping and as a quick way to answer questions of legal process.
My advice is that you use a CLA for any project that meets these conditions:. But… we are good folks! Things can go bad There are many case of long-lived open source projects for which the lack of clear-cut handling of contributions revealed to be an issue. What happens the other way around? The project license terms cannot be changed unless all contributors agree.
Not a convenient web-based click-through process, to be sure. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. 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. 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. Poisoned contributions I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member.
In most jurisdiction and by default, the contributor retains copyright unless an explicit copyright transfer or license agreement has been established between both parties.
You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under new terms in the future, even if the contributor is out of reach. Otherwise, use your gut feeling.