I understood that from an email thread where this was discussed. It was opened in the private list so I can't paste the link here, but your recommendations were:
"Oliver: As long as the contribution is attached to a jira I consider implicit the contributor agree on the Apache license for the code he provide. Perso, when the patch/contribution is very huge (don't ask me figures in term of lines of code :-) )." "David: As a general rule submissions to the project (mailing list, Jira, pull request, etc.) are assumed under the terms of the ASL to be offered under the same license unless explicitly stated otherwise. Major contributions might need a CLA, but most patches won't rise to this level in my experience." I understand then, that by default, there is no need to sign the CLA. I'll remove that section from the guide :) Thanks for checking! On 18 June 2013 14:54, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >> == Contributor license agreement == >> >> Before contributing, you may have to sign the >> [[http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas|Apache ICLA]]. All contributions and >> patches attached to a [[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS|JIRA]] >> issue are assumed to be under the agreement, so even if small patches and >> changes may not require an explicit signature, it is always a good idea to >> have it in place. >> > > A signed CLA isn't required by the ASF for patches - is there a reason > the project wishes to require them? > > --David
