(Follow-up to my mail from a while back) We (RIM) have started using a slightly modified version of Apache's ICLA & CCLA for our nascient Open Source projects. So far, so good. But there is an angle where I could benefit again from your experience.
Some employee contracts have a variation of a statement that says "IP generated by the employee in <different conditions> is owned by the company". Ignoring how/whether local laws (like California) void this... a company can argue that they don't want their employees to sign ICLAs b/c they don't own IP and thus only CCLAs are applicable. ASF [1] explicitly indicates that its requiring both ICLA and CCLAs: [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas "Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need for every developer to sign their own CLA as an individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the CCLA." Another argument for requiring both ICLA and CCLA is to cover contributions from the individual after he or she has stopped working for the corporation that signed the CCLA - without relying on the cooperation of the employee or the employer to notify ASF of the change. Am I interpreting correctly the practice used by ASF on this area? Do you ever get challenged? What do you do if you are? Do you have a list of CCLA signatories anywhere? I only see the ICLA list. Thanks, Eduardo
