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):||23 April 2007|
|PDF File Size:||8.75 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.5 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Countless times, he received contribution proposals. Second key point, this time against poisonous contributions.
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.
It is implicitly and culturally implied that by doing so, one publishes changes under the same conditions as the original license. But one apcahe not be a committer to contribute code to an Apache Software Foundation project.
Some contributors may be hard to contact a few years later. Great I hear you say, apachhe they pick up a license according to how much freedom they want to give to the recipients of their work. The lack of a CLA is not much on an issue for the vast majority of projects, especially when using a permissive license such as the Apache Software License v2 or an MIT -style license.
So having any form of contributor agreement comes with a significant social cost.
What is the license governing the contribution? 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”. When version 3 of the GNU licenses came out, KDElike other high-profile projects got interested in switching to the new licenses.
Contributors Licence Agreement (CLA)
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. A rare exception is section 5 of the Apache Software License v2 that says:. Menu Close Home Subscribe.
And so the analogous intellectual property posture to adopt via a vis these contributors is not to require that they sign ICLAs. I am not a apachw. My advice is that you use a CLA for any project that meets these conditions:.
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements
No printing, no signing, no PDFS, no hassle. Grant of Patent License. Now recall what I said above: 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.
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. You apachf not expected to iclz support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. Did the contributor reuse third-party works?
Contributors explictly grant a license to the upstream project maintainers to use contributions. While they are not practical for every project that you may create, I believe that they shall not be overlooked either. Can we accept pull requests from GitHub resolved November Apache CouchDb apsche 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.
We have cila on all of our communication channels. Note that these documents are both copyright and patent license agreements. 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. iccla
In Defense of Contributor License Agreements | Julien Ponge
This may sound funny at first, but this clause just lifts support duties from the contributor. A rare exception is section 5 of the Apache Software License v2 that says: As always in this blog I speak only for myself and not for my employer, organizations with which I work, or anyone else.
Compelling web-based user interfaces, those are going to be a big transformative thing someday.
But… we are good folks! Social coding and all that. Here apacye my modest attempt at debunking some myths and clarifying a few things.
You, however, will not be committing to protect the public benefit or the Apache bylaws. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation, etc.
You may go purely online, too: Conceptually this is like attaching a patch file to the issue tracker entry, except representing the patch file in a radically more friendly zpache compelling way. Requiring a contributor license agreement is a sign that you intend to sustain your project iclq the long run with responsible practices regarding intellectual property management.
Except for the license granted herein to aapche Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all.