Many thanks David, all clear now! Ignasi
On 5 June 2014 16:43, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Ignasi Barrera <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks for the quick reply David (I'm moving it to the dev@ list). >> >>> Only a person from Cisco would be authorized to do this generally >>> speaking. If the contribution includes software from Cisco, then it >>> needs to stay (and probably be annotated in NOTICE). If the >>> contribution is from the author at Cisco, we should point them to the >>> Source Header policy. Does that distinction make sense? (and I note >>> you have) >> >> Yes, that distinction makes sense, as the author of the last pull >> request is a Cisco employee (as per his comments), so I think it is >> correct to request to remove the copyright notice from the header >> files. >> > > Agreed. > >>> So a CCLA isn't required (unless the employer requires it) ICLA isn't >>> technically required either unless you are a committer. Submitting a >>> patch to the project triggers section 5 of the ASLv2 giving us that >>> contribution under the same license. >>> That said, we shouldn't be accepting contributions that don't comply >>> with [4] unless that contribution includes 3rd-party work, in which >>> case we ought not change the source. That doesn't look it's the case >>> here. >> >> I think we all agree it is not a third party contribution. I suggested >> to submit it just to make sure everyone had the terms and conditions >> clear. Thanks for pointing to the section 5 of the license. >> > > Yep > >>> Also; note that the source header is not a statement of >>> copyright. It's explicitly not a statement of copyright, because the >>> ASF doesn't hold the copyright individuals or companies do.. Some >>> folks want (demand?) an attribution; you could conceivably put this in >>> NOTICE; and I've seen other projects do that. >>> Take a look at https: >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt >> >> Regarding the NOTICE file, I searched the "legal-discuss" mailing list >> archive, and although there is the example notice giving attribution, >> the threads I found there discouraged including this kind of >> copyrights (otherwise most ASF commiters whould be filling the NOTICE >> files with attributions to their employers that are already covered by >> the CLAs, and NOTICE files are meant to be small and not to provide >> redundant information). >> >> So, if I understand properly, as any other contribution under the >> terms of the CLA, there is no need to include the attribution note in >> the NOTICE file unless the contributor's employer explicitly requests >> it? >> > > That's correct. It's generally frowned upon, because we build software > as a community, but the contributor (or their company) still owns the > copyright and can ask for that to be explicitly called out. > > --David
