• No Comments

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 .

Author: Doucage Akinogul
Country: Madagascar
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 20 September 2005
Pages: 272
PDF File Size: 7.68 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.57 Mb
ISBN: 983-6-67107-971-4
Downloads: 46416
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vot

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works.

Suppose you’ve also realized that Git and GitHub or even GitLab are radically more satisfying and open tooling than is Subversion. Accepting contributions on sole technical merits is sometimes not enough… License lock A classic case that comes to my mind is the one of the KDE Project re-licensing effort. They are merely contributors, expressing an intent to contribute something specific.

As for assignment vs unlimited licensing; I disagree.

For as much as I hate all forms of bureaucracy, I feel that CLAs are being mistaken by many fellow open source developers. 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, iclw any additional terms or conditions.

Contributors Licence Agreement

Note that these documents are both copyright and patent license agreements. Menu Close Home Subscribe. 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.


A CLA in practice It is not as aapache as you think.

Apache contributors need not sign a CLA

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. It is a perfectly effective license to use for any open source project where apadhe 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.

That’s why contributions via attachments in Bugzilla, or JIRA, or post to an email list, or so all work. You are right that the C CLA is not necessary when contributions are made under the Apache license itself, but they might be useful for record keeping and as a quick way to answer questions of legal process.

Contributors Licence Agreement (CLA)

The contribution stays yours. You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above license.

Apxche don’t need my analysis I’m not a lawyer. Neither of them is a copyright assignment; they are just broad copyright licenses with no limits on use or relicensing. You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, apacne to the extent You desire to provide support. I do not hold the truth, if any, so feel free to comment below! You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all.

You may go purely online, too: Non-committers have only read access to Subversion. Suppose you are choosing to piggyback your open source software community’s intellectual property practices on those of the Apache Software Foundation. I am not a lawyer. They may be doing so to achieve sufficient comfort that in their adding the third-party contribution to the repository they, the Commiters, are themselves fulfilling their obligations under their agreement to the CLA.


By far, not every project needs a CLA and the small bureaucracy overhead. It is implicitly and culturally implied that by doing so, one publishes changes under the same conditions as the original license. Now recall what I said above: What is the license governing the contribution?

No one is entitled aache have their contributions accepted and projects and project participants can gate their acceptance beyond the requirements of the Foundation further on whatever they want.

Here is my modest attempt at debunking some myths and clarifying a few things. Contributor license agreements are usually not a sign of evilness from the project maintainers.

Sometimes they will also permit re-licensing, or include patent protection clauses so that you cannot both abide to the license terms and threaten to use patents against copyright holders and recipients. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. It is a good practice to collect CLAs in the form of scanned documents sent by email.

Not a convenient web-based click-through process, to be sure. Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions.

The project license terms cannot be changed unless all contributors agree. All the same, they convey rights as broad as a copyright assignment would do, except without the exclusivity that one would create.