Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > Ooooook.... So, what you are saying is that we now asking the > committers to become legally affluent?
No, only to become aware of the fact that what they do is owned by their employer, or that it is not. In most cases in CA US for example, what you do on "your time" in the evening is yours, at least if it is not related to your work projects and doesn't borrow any code from the office. In other cases, it is not. And they are signing a document, I almost used the word fraud to describe signing this when, in fact, they are not authorized to commit under the AL to the ASF repositories due to their employers ownership of the code and lack of authorization. That is what it is. > My point; What happens to average committer candidate when the > employer says "No, you don't need us to sign this..."? My point; this has been asked and answered many times on board@, legal@ and other lists. Until they issue a different opinion, the foundation-wide policy is to accept CCLA's for clarification on the individual's behalf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
