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):||5 June 2012|
|PDF File Size:||16.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.70 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And you and I should really let Apache speak for itself. But… we are good folks! 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, however, will not be committing to protect the public benefit or the Apache apxche.
What happens the other way around? Plenty of developers refuse to sign individual apachd agreements of any kind and plenty of corporations have legal processes that make signing corporate contributor agreements at best burdensome and at worst impossible.
We just need a clear intent by the author to contribute under our normal terms.
iclz Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under new terms in the future, even if the contributor is out of reach. They are merely contributors, expressing an intent to contribute something specific.
You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above license. Otherwise, use your gut feeling. Their avenue for contribution more involves composing patch files and submitting these via post to an email list or attachment in an issue tracker. They’re a detailed, technical request that the Licensor include a specific changeset in the Work. 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.
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.
The question Here’s the question: Conceptually this is like attaching a patch file to the issue tracker entry, except representing the patch file in a radically more friendly and compelling way. Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache License version 2. Menu Close Home Subscribe. 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. Sometimes things go bad, and CLAs can be very useful tools in such situations.
Apache contributors need not sign a CLA
Upon contribution acceptance, the resulting software published by the upstream project is now in reality a joint-copyright effort. 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. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. More generally, what is essential is clear intent by the author to contribute under the Apache license terms, and clear record of that intent.
Once upon a time, an individual, a group of individuals or a company decides to publish its work as an open source project.
You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all. You may go purely online, too: It is a good practice to collect CLAs in the form of scanned documents sent by email. It is implicitly and culturally implied that by doing so, one publishes changes under the same conditions as the original license.
You are icls expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. You will at best chill contribution, even if you get away with xpache a while. Why on earth do you suggest they are almost the same?
While they are not practical for every project that you may create, I believe that apacne shall not be overlooked either. It serves as the basis for many other projects, including Scala, Square projects, Twitter projects and many more. I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member. They actually are copyright and patent license agreements apaxhe they grant expansive licenses to copyrights and patents, even though you are correct that they describe themselves as Contributor Agreements.
The Apache Software Foundation has an individual contributor license agreementwhich is very popular. Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions.
Apache contributors need not sign a CLA
Neither of them is a copyright assignment; they are apacche broad copyright licenses with no limits on use or relicensing. Since Git is only iclw mirror, these pull requests flow through a process of being linked from an issue tracker entry. 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. Pull Requests are maybe the world’s purest form of intentional submission to the Licensor of a Contribution for inclusion in the Work.
Contributor license agreements are usually not a sign of evilness from aapche project maintainers. 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.