I'd split the committer's section out to another page. If we want a page that gets a contributor to the point of having a PR, then just do that. The rest is for another audience. On Jun 18, 2013 6:16 AM, "Ignasi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >
