On 16 February 2012 11:25, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: >> [ASIDE many people in the ASF argue that the contribution under the >> Apache License is sufficient, this is not the forum for this >> discussion, current policy is that an ICLA is required - the forum to >> seek policy change is [email protected]] >
Judicious clipping has removed the context of this statement, my mail included: " I am only referring to contributions that contain significant IP or are not made available through some public repository." > The current policy as described in [1] explicitly does *not* require > an ICLA for all contributions. The relevant part is: > > "The ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation > to the Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax > or email) an Individual Contributor License Agreement (CLA) [PDF form]. > The purpose of this agreement is to clearly define the terms under which > intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow > us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding the > software at some future time. A signed CLA is required to be on file > before an individual is given commit rights to an ASF project." So the first half of my sentence above is covered, what about the second half? " are not made available through some public repository." (note again I also said "If nobody is contributing code that is not coming in through an active contribution process there is nothing to worry about and I'm just blowing hot air.") Ross
