Hi Rick, On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 09:02 -0600, Rick Clark wrote: > Hey Mark, > > First of all, orthogonally, we are very lucky to not have Copyright > Assignment crushing this project. That is what the management at > Rackspace wanted, only NASA's inability to sign such a document > prevented it.
Copyright assignment would certainly be worse than an Apache-style CLA. > IANAL, but I was told by lawyers when we were in the planning stages of > starting Openstack, that while in the US submitting code under the > Apache License 2.0 was enough to bind the submitter to it, that is not > the case in all countries. Some countries require explicit acceptance > to be bound by it. I've cc-ed Richard Fontana who I'm sure can comment on that. > As far as changing anything about the way the CLA works, until we have a > foundation, the discussion of which seems to have stalled, we, as a > group, have no real authority to change anything. Sure, I understand and eagerly await some progress/discussion on the foundation. I was very disappointed at the level of engagement in the important discussions started by ttx on the foundation@ list in October. Even before the foundation is established, though, I'd hope that we as a community could have sensible discussions about things like our CLA policy. > We have a bigger hole in the Corporate CLA, IMHO. I have been told that > since it is necessary for a corporate signer to explicitly name their > individual contributers, and we have no way of updating the document, > openstack is potentially left open to a lawsuit, if an employee > unspecified in the CLA, contributes something they consider IP. I > seriously hate all this legal stuff. I'll leave that one for Richard too :-) Cheers, Mark. > Cheers, > > Rick > > On 01/03/2012 06:22 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hey, > > > > I'm not sure whether this has been discussed recently, but do we really > > need a CLA? > > > > I had a long discussion with Richard Fontana about the Apache CLA in the > > context of another project and I came away from that convinced that the > > Apache CLA is fairly pointless. > > > > Compare the CLA to the Apache License 2.0 - there's a couple of fairly > > minor, arbitrary differences but, on the whole, they're the same. So, > > the CLA is effectively just the contributor granting OpenStack LLC the > > contribution under the Apache License 2.0. > > > > There are other ways to go about this: > > > > - Put in place an assumption that anyone contributing to the project > > (e.g. by pushing to gerrit) are contributing under the existing > > license of the project. > > > > - Follow the kernel's approach of making Signed-off-by: in each mean > > that you are contributing (and have the right to contribute) the > > code under the existing license of the project (http://goo.gl/lRhmQ) > > > > - Have a contributor agreement which explicitly says "I am the > > Copyright holder and submit my contributions under the Apache > > License 2.0" > > > > Each of these schemes are used elsewhere and have significant advantages > > over the current CLA scheme - e.g. less bureaucracy, not as scarey to > > new contributors, less chance of the CLA being confused with copyright > > assignment, etc. > > > > Cheers, > > Mark. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
