On 09/15/2014 10:25 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote: >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jeremy Stanley [fu...@yuggoth.org] >> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 2:05 PM >> >> On 2014-09-15 16:47:13 +0000 (+0000), Sandy Walsh wrote: >>> It's the Corporate CLA that's needed. The companies that want to >>> contribute have already vetted and signed the CCLA. They need >>> protection in case someone contributes something nasty. >>> Accidentally or intentionally. >> [...] >> >> Hopefully you understand that Gerrit does not in any way enforce the >> CCLA for any projects, official or otherwise? > > Hmm, my understanding was that branches are not accepted without a signed > ICLA. Is that not the default case?
It's a per-project config option. If you are a stackforge project, you can chose to not enforce the CLA. However, if you are a stackforge project that has aspirations to becoming an OpenStack project, not having CLA enforcement on while on stackforge could make things sticky for that. >>> If we can make a great widget and our license is suitably >>> permissive, is there a reason we should need inclusion? >> >> Not at all. It was merely the only reason I could conceive for you >> wanting to impose the ICLA on your contributors. In fact it sounds >> like you may have done so due to a misunderstanding? > > IANAL, so it could very well be. I'll talk with our contributors about that. > >>> It would let us continue developing our software as we are >>> currently. Business as usual. And it would protect the >>> contributing companies just as the CCLA does today. Getting these >>> companies to vet and sign another CCLA would be very hard to do. >>> And us getting a new CCLA/ICLA in place would be impossible. >> >> I believe this may be a giant error in interpretation of the >> document, and I strongly encourage you to bring it up on the >> legal-disc...@lists.openstack.org mailing list since yours may not >> be the only project making such assumptions. > > Yep, sounds like further opinion is needed. > >>> We are OpenStack users and an OpenStack focused project. We're just >>> trying to do it with minimum bureaucracy. >> >> In this case CLA bureaucracy is imposed on official OpenStack >> projects due to foundation bylaws. There should be no need to >> inflict this on other projects which are not an official part of >> OpenStack itself and have no intention of becoming so, and the >> wording therein may not be providing any protection to unofficial >> projects and their contributors whatsoever. > > That's definitely interesting. I'll follow up. > > I gave [1] a read, which was helpful. But it's not definitive in any way. > >> Jeremy Stanley > > Thanks for the feedback Jeremy. This could be a great help. > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAndItsCLA > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-Infra mailing list >> OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-Infra mailing list > OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra