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):||10 December 2018|
|PDF File Size:||6.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Apache contributors need not sign a CLA
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.
But… apzche are good folks! Sometimes things go bad, and CLAs can be very useful tools in such situations. We don’t need the silly checkbox. 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” iccla “Pull Requests”.
It is a perfectly effective license to use for any open source project where the community has no expectation of contribution on the part of users of the code, as it conveys all the rights you need to work with the code independently of others.
apachs 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. A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the KDE Project re-licensing effort.
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. 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. 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.
You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above license. So having any form of contributor agreement comes with a significant social cost. Contributor license agreements are usually not a sign idla evilness from the project maintainers. Suppose you’ve also realized that Git and GitHub or even GitLab are radically more satisfying and open tooling than is Subversion.
You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. I once was chatting with a friend who is an Apache Software Foundation member.
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. That’s why contributions via attachments in Bugzilla, or JIRA, or post to an email list, or so all work.
Next, push the CLA on your project website, and ensure that every contribution that you get is from someone who signed it. You may go purely online, too: The Apache 2 license itself specifies.
This is, I think, the first key point. My advice is that you use a CLA for any project that meets these conditions: 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.
Apache contributors need not sign a CLA
For as much as I hate all forms of bureaucracy, I feel that CLAs are being mistaken by many fellow open source developers. While an open source license gives permissions to project recipients, a contributor license agreement clarifies the terms and scope of contributions being made back to such project.
This clause is subject to adaptations outside the ASFbut it nevertheless specificies that it is not a copyright transfer. In particular, they provide permissions to make derivative works. Countless times, he received contribution proposals. Their avenue for contribution more involves composing patch files and submitting these via post to an email list or attachment in an issue tracker.
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. A rare exception is section 5 of the Apache Software License v2 that says:.
Apache License Yes, Apache CLA No | Meshed Insights Ltd
This raises a few questions, including: But when Apache project committers require Pull Request offers to sign the CLA, they’re not doing so out of a requirement of Apache licensing policy. Indeed, most people aren’t committers, most people don’t become committers, and those who do become committers earn that rarified status by first contributing. The sections that I find especially interesting are the following ones. This may sound funny at first, but this clause just lifts support duties from the contributor.
In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource.
Most software developers are well-rounded and honest individuals making worthy contributions. Grant of Copyright License. The Apache License v2 ALv2 is the best choice among non-reciprocal licenses for new projects, mostly because it includes explicit patent licensing.
Contributors Licence Agreement
apsche I hope to have demystified some myths on the usefulness of contributor license agreements. 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. Some contributors may be hard to contact ilca few years later. Committers sign ICLAs, contributors don’t People and organizations propose code changes to the original project maintainers.