"Jean T. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > this is less of an issue now at Apache because committers are only given > accounts after the signed CLA has been recorded (it wasn't always that > way in the past). You'll notice at > http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html that some names are in > italics -- those don't have signed CLAs and my understanding is those > accounts have been disabled. > > All Derby committers have signed CLAs in place.
That's what I thought, and that's also why the paragraph didn't make sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up. >> >> "Remind active committers that they are responsible for ensuring that >> a Corporate CLA is recorded if such is required to authorize their >> contributions under their individual CLA." >> >> I assume that 'active committers' refer to people contributing to the >> code being donated? (As opposed to existing Derby committers). What's >> the definition of 'active' in this context? At least one contribution >> in the last six months? > > It's just easier to post that reminder to derby-dev and catch any and > all who have contributed in the past and might contribute more in the > future. > > In an old post [1] I explained (or tried to explain) what the CCLA issue > is. The main point is the CCLA is there to protect employees who are > paid to work on Apache projects, and avoid any misunderstandings with > their employer. > > I hope this helps. > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200612.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] Well, I realize now that 'active committers' refer to Derby committers. From the above email I understand what you did, and I think I'll be able to copy your example. (While I see why it is important that committers have CLAs and CCLAs, I still don't understand why this becomes more important when considering a software grant.) -- dt
