In case anyone asks, I updated the licenses page
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas to start using the new cla-corporate.pdf
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.pdf instead of the old
cla-corporate.txt.
The pdf version should be much easier to use and does not require users to
refor
Ok, just wanted to make sure...
Why isn't my memory updated with "svn commit" ?? Yeah, the CCLA was updated
in 2005 with the appendix to make the grant specific.
Never mind...
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Craig Russell
wrote:
> Hi Niclas,
>
> The CCLA is suffic
In my experience, the CCLA is too 'strong' for many corporate types since
it delegates decision making waaay down in the pecking order with no
recourse.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Craig Russell
wrote:
> Hi Niclas,
>
> The CCLA is sufficient as a code grant for new cod
Hi Niclas,
The CCLA is sufficient as a code grant for new code bases coming into Apache.
Of course, committers must submit their own ICLA as well.
Why do you consider the CCLA a ‘weak’ agreement?
Craig
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:04 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> I am seeing
Hi Niclas,
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:04 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> I am seeing on
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
> that the CCLA is adequate for new codebases coming in via the Incubator. Is
> that really the case? It seems to me to
I am seeing on
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
that the CCLA is adequate for new codebases coming in via the Incubator. Is
that really the case? It seems to me to be a rather 'weak' agreement for
something that substantial.
Cheers
--
Nicl
Podling commons-rdf fits that description. It started at GitHub in the
knowledge that ASF was a possible route; ALv2 from the start. (We
started at GH because there are people who would join discussions more
freely on GH.)
It so happens, the contributors are all ASF committers. With advice
How contributed code is rejected;
% How contributed code is accepted;
@ What combination of ICLA, CCLA, and SGA was used:
% Formal statements from Legal about the specific transfer;
% informal statements from Legal about the specific transfer;
I've probably missed a couple of important datapoi
IANAL, but this is what I learned when prepping code donations:
1) Every line of code is owned by some entity (a person or other legal
entity)
2) The person who owned it (may be different from the person who wrote it)
and added it to the collection of code did so under some terms.
3) If those term
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:42 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> ...what are the best practices to follow when creating a new project, outside
> the ASF, with the goal of eventually contributing that work to an existing
> ASF project?...
Following as much of our maturity model [1] as possible helps - in
This seems like an appropriate thread to raise a question that’s been in the
back of my head for a while…
If a new project is created on github (or elsewhere — i.e. outside of the ASF),
but with the intention that it would be contributed to an existing ASF project
(ALv2 license from day 1), wou
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else,
>> just for a future reference).
>
> Here:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> ...For Gro
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else,
> just for a future reference).
Here:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the
> Groovy Core Team. If
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:03 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
>>> much when the codebase is alread
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
>> much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has
>> zero
>> effect bu
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
> much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero
> effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant
> form
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
>
> If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was
> either proprietary or available under a different open source license -- then
> the Software Grant is hugely important from a legal standpoint. You have to
>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:22 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
> "special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was
either proprietary or available under a
Le 26/03/15 15:11, Upayavira a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>>
>> Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
>> in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
>>
>> " Subject to the terms and conditions of t
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
> "special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
There is nothing legal to cover here. Since all the code is AL 2.0,
legally, we are fine. The grant is (a) a bit of
And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
"special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual
> transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache
There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual
transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache Group, all
members of the Apache Group signed the xfer which amounted to
the SGA at the time.
For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the
Groovy Core Team. If we could
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>
> Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
> in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
>
> " Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
> hereby grants
Le 26/03/15 14:43, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead /
> representative) can fill in the form, and say "on behalf of the Groovy
> community", I grant the rights to the ASF?
Jim said "Just do it !"...
Let's discuss about the legal aspect ther
I really have no opinion on the matter (IANAL). I'm just a virtual
paper pusher, but I did want to have a clear understanding of the
requirements so that when folks ask us on secretary@, we can guide
them to the right place or give them the right advice.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Guillaume
So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead /
representative) can fill in the form, and say "on behalf of the Groovy
community", I grant the rights to the ASF?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>
> Groovy has been
I think we are going a bit too far here.
Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
" Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irre
We've only seen positive messages from the community at large about the
move, all supporting and praising the decision, in various forms, whether
on our mailing-lists, or twitter, etc.
So the community is already aware of it and supports this move.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Dashorst
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:07 AM Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> So ultimately, what do we do?
> Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to
> sign something "on behalf of the Groovy community" or something like that?
> Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the c
Would the discussion on the dev@groovy list be enough 'evidence' for
the intent of the community to move to Apache?
Then it would possible be sufficient to archive those messages for
posterity (but I'm no lawyer)
Martijn
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> So ultimately
So ultimately, what do we do?
Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to
sign something "on behalf of the Groovy community" or something like that?
Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the community's intention
as a whole?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM,
If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant.
If the code was built by a large community under the apache license,
there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire
to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle
that we only accept cod
> In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it?
Nobody owns it.
> If
> I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it
> indicates that an entity known as "The Groovy community" owns it, in which
> case the SGA should probably come from them, no?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM James Carman
wrote:
> Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this
> particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a
> point where we said "this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this
> situation" with TinkerPop. We just did w
t. How many grants do we need? Who files
them? Can one person file one and say "I am speaking on behalf of the
entire team"?
> -cCLA is between people and their employers, the ASF only stores them
Again, I don't think this is under review either. Perhaps I should
have not inclu
ware that comes from outside the ASF needs to come with a software grant
-cCLA is between people and their employers, the ASF only stores them
Is there more to it?
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.a
Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this
particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a
point where we said "this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this
situation" with TinkerPop. We just did what we thought was best at
the time. It would be good to have
proposal that was voted on when Samza was accepted as a podling.
> > > Though for the record, neither was the initial repo. Regardless, that
> > > was almost a year ago. IMO IP Clearance is the process that covers
> > > bringing in the additional IP at this time. You'
ultiple issues here. The repo in question wasn't called out in the
> > proposal that was voted on when Samza was accepted as a podling.
> > Though for the record, neither was the initial repo. Regardless, that
> > was almost a year ago. IMO IP Clearance is the process that co
tial repo. Regardless, that
> was almost a year ago. IMO IP Clearance is the process that covers
> bringing in the additional IP at this time. You'll need to follow that
> process, and CCLA might give you some of the paperwork you need in the
> process, but it doesn't obviate the nee
itional IP at this time. You'll need to follow that
process, and CCLA might give you some of the paperwork you need in the
process, but it doesn't obviate the need for going through the IP
Clearance process.
My reading of things is that as part of that IP Clearance you would
nee
you once the
> right of use has been established for the ASF, if it is taken care of
> within the original CCLA and can be confirmed then great.
>
> Thanks for the due diligence on this
> -Jake
>
>
> [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
r you once the
right of use has been established for the ASF, if it is taken care of
within the original CCLA and can be confirmed then great.
Thanks for the due diligence on this
-Jake
[1]: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Jakob
e
turn-key after cloning and (b) to make it faster to iterate on. However,
it's turned out there's lots of interest in the hello-samza itself, which
is being directed towards the podling.
I started work on IP clearance to import it in, but when I talked with LI's
legal department about
Dear Shanti Subramanyan,
This message acknowledges receipt of the following document, which has been
filed in the Apache Software Foundation records:
CCLA from Sun Microsystems, Inc. for Web2.0kit aka Olio
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
Hi Michael,
On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Michael Fitzner wrote:
At the beginning of our Apache time we sent a Corporate CLA (CCLA) and
a initial list of designated employees (Schedule A) to the ASF. Some
weeks ago one of our employees did a job change. Now we would like to
clarify if we need
At the beginning of our Apache time we sent a Corporate CLA (CCLA) and
a initial list of designated employees (Schedule A) to the ASF. Some
weeks ago one of our employees did a job change. Now we would like to
clarify if we need to send an updated CCLA to you (without the person
that resigned from
...
Just a quick update on this:
UoB finally got back to me and -- good news -- it's Ray Crispin
(ex-labs, ex-appliance studio), which saves me some explanation.
He was broadly positive, although they've raised one concern at [1]
para 5: they don't generally provide representations, guarantees o
I made an edit to the incubator site. What do you think of it?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
>> clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
>
> If you really feel that there needs to be a c
> Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
> clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
If you really feel that there needs to be a clarification, it should probably
go as a patch to the Apache site (specifically,
http://www.apache.org/licenses/), where it
On Nov 28, 2010, at 4:26 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
Hey folks,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software
grant
plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to
work on
Apache projects, whether on
Hey folks,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
> I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software grant
> plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to work on
> Apache projects, whether on their own time or company time.
>
>
If the code was developed in part by HP employees "on the clock" then
a CCLA or SGA must be obtained from HP.
If the code was developed in part by others, then those other persons
need to sign a SGA covering their contributions.
All the current developers need to sign an ICLA.
Well, this is going to depend on how the copyrights work, I guess. If
it's clear that HP owns the copyright (all the HP people were working
for hire), then a CCLA from HP will cover it. However, IANTL.
-
To unsubscribe, e
On 27/11/10 13:34, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
I tend to agree with Craig in this particular case, as HP owns the
code to Jena and it's HP employes, covered by a CCLA, who are going to
commit it.
I dont' think this makes a material difference to this discussion, but
for clarity the
, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
Hi Benson,
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software
grant
plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to
work on
Apache projects, whether on their own time or company time.
So, if a CCLA is filed naming
x27;s HP employes, covered by a CCLA, who are going to
commit it.
In the general cases, incoming codebases are often collective works,
so I wouldn't say "a grant is not needed if committers are covered by
a CCLA". Best is probably to discuss here and/or on legal-discuss for
cases wher
Craig,
Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
Thanks,
benson
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
> Hi Benson,
>
> I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the softw
Hi Benson,
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software
grant plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to
work on Apache projects, whether on their own time or company time.
So, if a CCLA is filed naming the software, a separate SGA is *not
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
> CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
CCLA has been seen as required for individuals, working at the
company, to protect them from the company c
I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
The Jena podling has asked me. Their situation is that an HP copyright
is thought to cover all the 'corporate' code, and they wonder if there
is any reason for the
Edward J. Yoon wrote:
Hello IPMC,
The employee list of NHN's CCLA contains only two (Edward J. Yoon,
Donguk Choi) except Suh and Joosun. Then, What happen by a lack of not
having everyone on the CCLA?
Can't we release the hama? or Can't we open the TLP vote?
IIUC, Suh and J
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Edward J. Yoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello IPMC,
>
> The employee list of NHN's CCLA contains only two (Edward J. Yoon,
> Donguk Choi) except Suh and Joosun. Then, What happen by a lack of not
> having everyone on the CCLA?
>
&g
Hello IPMC,
The employee list of NHN's CCLA contains only two (Edward J. Yoon,
Donguk Choi) except Suh and Joosun. Then, What happen by a lack of not
having everyone on the CCLA?
Can't we release the hama? or Can't we open the TLP vote?
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Edwar
Thank you for all advices and support.
Best Regards, Edward
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Edward J. Yoon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello, I have s
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward J. Yoon wrote:
>>
>> Hello, I have some question about CCLA.
>>
>> Should we have a CCLA even if it is an individual work? and, In the
>> similar context, how does t
Edward J. Yoon wrote:
Hello, I have some question about CCLA.
Should we have a CCLA even if it is an individual work? and, In the
similar context, how does that apply to an individual working for
government agency?
Thanks.
If you are not independent -- i.e. work for a company then you
Hello, I have some question about CCLA.
Should we have a CCLA even if it is an individual work? and, In the
similar context, how does that apply to an individual working for
government agency?
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Edward J. Yoon,
http://blog.udanax.org
Jim Jagielski wrote:
...
> No, a FAXed copy is fine. It's just that if someone rec's the
> grant, they can't just "log" it in the cclas.txt/grants.txt file
> and keep it. I need a copy as well.
>
> We need to further clarify that such docs can be accepted either
> by:
>
> o Hardcopy snail-maile
On Feb 20, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
oh, hee hee, Jim already made the change to bullet 3 in revision
509668.
:-)
For those not on the commit notices, Jim also added:
the officer should be the ASF Secretary, who must be provided an
original copy of the grant or CCLA in
oh, hee hee, Jim already made the change to bullet 3 in revision 509668.
:-)
For those not on the commit notices, Jim also added:
> the officer should be the ASF Secretary, who must be provided an original
> copy of the grant or CCLA in any case.
I hadn't realized that. So, in
I went ahead and made the changes to the template info.
I also made sure to remind people that the actual
grant itself (either the CCLA or the grant) needs to be
filed with the secretary, so it can be physically filed
(and scanned).
On Feb 20, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote
ame recorded for software grant: the name of the grant as record in
> the grants.txt document so that the grant can be easily identified
But there are two ways to submit a software grant:
- Software grant [2]
- CCLA Schedule B [3]
I clarified with Jim how specifically CCLA Schedule B (a
You don't; that is - it's up to the iCLA signer to represent that they have
the legal authority to sign the darned thing.
A cCLA kicks in when 1) the -company- is granting code, on a continuing basis,
and wants to make clear that all ongoing corporate-owned IP continues to be
granted
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
The requirement for iCLAs is pretty straightforward. What is the rule
for requiring CCLAs?
For the actual CCLA, no requirement - it's there for employees to use to
ensure that they have clear ability to participate from the POV of
their employer. IOW, CYA.
The requirement for iCLAs is pretty straightforward. What is the rule
for requiring CCLAs? How do I, on the Apache side, perform due
diligence? Do I just point the candidates to the license page and ask
them to carefully read the material?
Regards,
Alan
76 matches
Mail list logo
