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 .
|Country:||United Arab Emirates|
|Published (Last):||18 March 2017|
|PDF File Size:||13.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements
We do ask for a license, as Apache license requires. Compelling web-based user interfaces, those are going to be a big transformative thing someday.
Background Suppose you are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Foundation. 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. In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution.
People and organizations propose code changes to the original project maintainers. You may go purely online, too: A CLA in practice It is not as hard as you think. So having any form of contributor agreement comes with a significant social cost. When version 3 of the GNU licenses came out, KDElike other high-profile projects got interested in switching to the new licenses.
Suppose you are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Foundation. You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all. By far, not every project needs a CLA and the small bureaucracy overhead. More generally, what is essential is clear intent by the author to contribute under the Apache license terms, and clear record of that intent.
Apache License Yes, Apache CLA No | Meshed Insights Ltd
Otherwise, use your gut feeling. As for assignment vs unlimited licensing; I disagree. Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions.
Of course we have, but one shall not forget what a license is meant to be. The question Here’s the question: It is not as hard as you think. An unlimited license unlocks distribution rights like those the owner has, on a non-exclusive basis. apadhe
Contributors Licence Agreement (CLA)
Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation, etc. The contribution stays yours. Upon contribution acceptance, the resulting software published by the upstream project is now in reality a joint-copyright effort. An assignment assigns the legal power to control distribution of the work to some other entity, such that you no longer have that power yourself even if the assignment includes an irrevocable license in return.
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.
Suppose you’ve also realized that Git and GitHub or even GitLab are radically more satisfying and open tooling than is Subversion. Most software developers are well-rounded and honest individuals making worthy contributions.
This clause is subject to adaptations outside the ASFbut it nevertheless specificies that it is not a copyright transfer.
Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under new terms in the future, even if the contributor is out of reach. It serves as the basis for many other projects, including Scala, Square projects, Twitter projects and many more.
Can we accept pull requests from GitHub resolved November Apache CouchDb commit policy Roy on contributions and git that opinion comes from me speaking as a board member and author of the Apache License, and has previously been cleared with Apache’s legal team for a long ago discussion with Incubator.
If you are really worried about certification of origin, use the signed-off-by process using a Developer Certificate of Origin. You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions.
But… we are good folks! And you and I should really let Apache speak for itself. We don’t need a CLA on file to accept contributions from non-committers. An Apache legal email list thread occasioned by this blog post specifically so nice that this email list is open participation and open archives.
This tooling lowers the barrier to entry for someone who isn’t a committer to fork your project, develop virtuous improvement in a feature branch, and offer this change, propose that it become part of the software product, via awesome artifacts called “Merge Requests” or “Pull Requests”. Menu Close Home Subscribe. Sometimes things go bad, and CLAs can be very useful tools in such situations. They are not Committers.
Pull Requests are maybe the world’s purest form of intentional submission to the Licensor of a Contribution for inclusion in the Work. Once upon a time, an individual, a group of individuals or a company decides to publish its work as an open source project.