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):||2 February 2012|
|PDF File Size:||6.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
They are not Committers. But ALv2 gives you full permission in advance to do anything you choose with the code, almost as if you owned it.
It serves as the basis for many other projects, including Scala, Square projects, Twitter projects and many more. The project license terms cannot be changed unless all contributors agree. They’re a detailed, technical request that the Licensor include a specific changeset in the Work.
We do ask for a license, as Apache license requires. Great, so apacye I really need a CLA?
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. When version 3 of the GNU licenses came out, KDElike other high-profile projects got interested in switching to the new licenses. Otherwise, use your gut feeling.
While they are not practical for every project that you may create, I believe that they shall not be overlooked either.
In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource. What is the license governing the contribution? A CLA is probably overkill if you are running a project as an individual free of employer restrictions. Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, aache interest in and to Your Contributions.
You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. Now recall what I said above: And this is where the story ends for licenses: I argue that it is this offering patches that is most analogous to what would-be contributors are doing when they offer icka Pull Request to an open source project via GitHub. 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.
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”.
Evil maintainers with hidden agendas reveal themselves in how they deal with a community, not by requiring you to sign a CLA.
Apache License Yes, Apache CLA No | Meshed Insights Ltd
Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation, etc. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Must, further, that signature happen via a PDF? 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.
Contributors Licence Agreement
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. 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 icl License, without any additional apacne or conditions.
Contributors explictly apavhe a license to the upstream project maintainers to use contributions. They are merely contributors, expressing an alache to contribute something specific.
By far, not every project needs a CLA and the small bureaucracy overhead. You represent that Your Contribution submissions include complete details of any third-party license or other restriction including, but not limited to, related patents and trademarks of which you are personally aware and which are associated with any part of Your Contributions.
Menu Close Home Subscribe. You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above license. A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the KDE Project re-licensing effort. More generally, what is essential is clear intent by the author to contribute under the Apache license terms, and clear record of that intent. Same problem with company contributions: You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all.
Ilca sign ICLAs, contributors don’t This may sound funny at first, but this clause just lifts support duties from the contributor. Here is my modest attempt at debunking some myths and clarifying a few things. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Grant of Copyright License.