I agree. It seems like an overly onerous requirement, on the face of it.
robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 13:41 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > I got rid of all the CCs.
> >
> > On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> >
> > > Good points. I agree that Apache could be made safer from submarine IP
> > > by making the validation process for ICLA-only signators stricter. The
> > > question becomes "How strict is too strict?"
> >
> > I've proposed asking that a CCLA be required from everyone with an
> > employer specifically to protect the employee as well as the ASF, to
> > prevent accidentally (or intentionally) submarining IP into a project.
> >
> > I realize that this is an additional burden for contributors and the
> > foundation, but... ("SCO, anyone?")
> >
> > The JCP is also looking at this issue as there is a real fear there
> > that IP will be contributed accidentally by an individual that would
> > put the implementors and users of a spec (as well as the spec) at risk.
>
> FWIW i fear that requiring CCLA may cause difficulties for (in
> particular) european committers.
>
> IANAL but...
>
> employment law in the UK (and the rest of Europe, i think) is both
> different and clear: any work you do in your own time on your own
> machines belongs to you (unless you specifically assign it to your
> employers). however, the CCLA is a difficult document for european
> employers. the effect of it's incorporation into a UK employment
> contract is hard to predict. it may not be enforceable. alternatively,
> it may translate into a positive right to create open source on company
> time. at the very least, any company would be faced with the not
> inconsiderable expense of seeking a legal opinion.
>
> i have always asked whether there are any objections to my hacking OSS
> in my own time (for politeness sake) but my experience has been that
> though employers may agree verbally and may even be willing to agree to
> a memorandum of understanding about the current UK employment statue,
> they will not sign a document like the CCLA. it simply exposes them to
> too many potential liabilities.
>
> i also find it hard to understand how any contribution by a UK employee
> could put any downstream users at risk. if an employee takes existing
> code copyrighted by their employer and intentionally makes it available
> without permission then this is theft. a buyer acting in good faith who
> purchased stolen goods is not liable (though stands to lose the good in
> question which would mean that implementation would have to be rewritten
> around the stolen material, i suppose). this applies in a very
> straightforward fashion to open source contributions (from UK employees,
> at least): providing that the copyright has been assigned to the ASF and
> has no obvious signs that it has been stolen, then it can be safely
> accepted.
>
> if the ASF is serious in going down this route then maybe some
> consideration of the consequences on committers outside the US may be
> appropriate...
>
> - robert
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Sign up for eircom broadband now and get a free two month trial.*
Phone 1850 73 00 73 or visit http://home.eircom.net/broadbandoffer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
