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: Mujora Samujora
Country: Saudi Arabia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 14 July 2015
Pages: 119
PDF File Size: 6.53 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.65 Mb
ISBN: 826-5-78077-946-2
Downloads: 91632
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Arashill

You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. Most software developers are well-rounded and honest individuals making worthy contributions.

Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or apachhe the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions. Same problem with company contributions: In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource.

I am not a lawyer.

Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache License version 2. And this is where the story ends for licenses: When version 3 of the GNU licenses came out, KDElike other high-profile projects got interested in switching to the new licenses.

They are not Committers. 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 are merely contributors, expressing an intent to contribute something specific. 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.

Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions. It is implicitly and culturally implied that by doing so, one publishes changes under the same conditions as the original license. Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under new terms in the future, even if the contributor is out of reach. However, there is a HUGE difference between an assignment and a license.


Contributors Licence Agreement

A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the KDE Project re-licensing effort. The Apache Software Foundation has an individual contributor license agreementwhich is very apaache.

It serves as the basis for many other projects, including Scala, Square projects, Twitter projects and many more. 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.

Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of kcla distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. 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.

Offering a patch file in this way does not entail signing the Apadhe. You will at best chill alache, even if you get away with for a while. 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. Now if you have a bit of time, here is why I believe that CLAs are a good thing, although not every project actually needs it.

But one need not be a committer to contribute code to an Apache Software Foundation 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.


If you are really worried about certification of origin, use the signed-off-by process using a Developer Certificate of Origin. A rare exception is section 5 of the Apache Software License v2 that says: Now recall what I said above: We just need a clear intent by the author to contribute under our normal terms.

An Apache legal email list thread occasioned by this blog post specifically so nice that this email list is open participation and open archives. 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.

In particular, they provide permissions to make derivative works. The question Here’s the question: Conclusion I hope to have demystified some myths on the usefulness of contributor license agreements.

Countless times, he received contribution proposals. Did the contributor reuse third-party works?

In Defense of Contributor License Agreements | Julien Ponge

Thanks a lot Pierre for triggering this response that I had promised you, although I understand we may only agree to disagree: The Apache 2 license itself specifies. Social coding and all that. Poisoned contributions I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member. 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.

What is the license governing the contribution? But a company is not.