On 4/19/2012 9:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > I have a non-ASF hosted project (jszip.org hosted on github in case you are > interested), which I am hoping to build enough of a developer community > (currently it is just me) around to be able to bring it into the ASF. > > To this end, I am licensing it under the ASL.
Sensible; although this would be the AL. There is no 'S' in license v2.0. > I don't want to have to maintain the ICLAs and CCLAs of contributors. > > Would it be OK if instead I just require that they have a signed ICLA with > the ASF and that they grant the copyright to the ASF since my eventual > intent is to bring this project into the ASF (once I have sufficient > community to bring it in that is! ;-) ) > > Thanks for considering this question. It has been repeatedly argued that ICLA, CCLA are not actually necessary to produce an AL 2.0 work. They help clarify intent. If you have another way of clarifying intent, use that. Document it, at least for yourself. Take our jira and bugzilla account creation logic, you license all contributions made under your account as AL code. And the AL has its own intrinsic language to help assure AL contributions are recognizably AL. Now, none of these people will become committers at the ASF without an ICLA, end of story. But that's up to them if they want to travel with the code, in any case you have an AL work coming in, and for every committer who tags along and files an ICLA, the better the paper trail becomes. AL clause 5 puts the burden on the contributor to show they expressly and carefully avoided granting an AL if they send you their work, end of story. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
