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):||19 September 2005|
|PDF File Size:||3.66 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Did the contributor reuse third-party works?
Contributors Licence Agreement
Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache License version 2. An unlimited license unlocks apsche rights like those the owner has, on a non-exclusive basis. Indeed, most people aren’t committers, most people don’t become committers, apcahe those who do become committers earn that rarified status by first contributing.
A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the KDE Project re-licensing effort. You are not the same special case as Apache and neither deserve nor will be granted the same grace. You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. Interesting projects attract contributions.
You, however, will not be committing paache protect the public benefit or the Apache bylaws. Neither of them is a copyright assignment; they are just broad copyright licenses with no limits on use or relicensing.
Non-committers have only read access to Subversion. 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. Offering a patch file in this way does not entail signing the ICLA. 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.
Grant of Patent License. The Apache License v2 ALv2 is the best choice among non-reciprocal licenses for new projects, mostly because it includes explicit patent licensing.
So next time you see a CLA: Poisoned contributions I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member. 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. That’s why contributions via attachments in Bugzilla, or JIRA, or post to an email list, or so all work.
You don’t need my analysis I’m not a lawyer. Great, so do I really need a CLA? In most jurisdiction and by default, the contributor retains copyright unless an explicit copyright transfer or license agreement has been established between both parties. Same problem with company contributions: 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. 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.
My advice is that you use a CLA for any project that meets these conditions:. People and organizations propose code changes to the original project maintainers.
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements | Julien Ponge
It is implicitly and culturally implied that by doing so, one publishes changes under the same conditions as the original license. Pull Requests are maybe the world’s purest form of intentional submission to the Licensor of a Contribution for inclusion in the Work.
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.
The sections that I find especially interesting are the following ones. I argue that it is this offering patches that is most analogous to what would-be contributors are doing when they offer a Pull Request to an open source project via GitHub.
But one need not be a committer to contribute icka to an Apache Software Foundation project. Many people regard iccla 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.
If you are really worried about certification of origin, use the signed-off-by process using a Developer Certificate of Origin. This clause is subject to adaptations outside the ASFbut apacje nevertheless specificies that it is not a copyright transfer. Some may sadly have died, too. Contributor license agreements are usually not a apach of evilness from the project maintainers. Since Git is only a mirror, these pull requests apacbe through a process of being linked from an issue tracker entry.
Things can go bad There are many case of long-lived apadhe source projects for which the lack of clear-cut handling of contributions revealed apacche be an issue.
We have archives on all apche our communication channels. In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource. Of course we have, but one shall not forget what a license is meant to be. Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions.
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. But a company is not. Not a convenient web-based click-through process, to be sure.
And this is where the story ends for licenses: I am not a lawyer. As always in this blog I speak only for myself and not for my employer, organizations with which I work, or anyone else.
Needless to say, it is probably a wise choice even in these cases to use the Apache Software License v2 because the section 5 that we highlighted above is explicit on what happens by default when someone proposes a contribution. But when Apache project committers require Pull Request offers to sign the CLA, they’re not doing so out of a requirement of Apache licensing policy.
You may go purely online, too: It is not as hard as you think.