hi, in general - fyi: we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the discussion and the release votes.
regards, gerhard 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com > <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on > file > > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute > > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF. > A > > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF > > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the > company > > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is > being > > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving > the > > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company > > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under > > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission > > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software grant > > is typically the best way to do it. > > I concur. > > Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant > (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software > Grant would be appreciated. > > If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations > indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a > problem? > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
