On Saturday 10 March 2007 00:47, Richard S. Hall wrote: > If you are willing to send in a grant, then I would say to just do it to > cover our bases. We can't get in trouble for having too much > documentation. Then once people have a chance to look, we can vote on > accepting the contribution.
To satisfy the legalities, this is exactly what some mean are needed. Provide the contribution "somewhere", the community look at it, and the PPMC (maybe even Felix PMC by the time we get that far :o) ) need to approve to accept the contribution, typically by a vote. During the same time the software grant should be submitted. NOW, that said; Roy Fielding claims otherwise, and there is currently a debate between the big guns, such as Roy and Jim the secretary, whether or not this is at all necessary. Roy's position is that the CLAs cover such contributions already, and in fact Day is the 'use case' in that debate. I tend to agree with Roy, the barrier seems unnecessary. Roy's main argument goes; <quote> The CCLA says: 8. It is your responsibility to notify the Foundation when any change is required to the list of designated employees authorized to submit Contributions on behalf of the Corporation, or to the Corporation's Point of Contact with the Foundation. The software grant is a simple non-exclusive license according to the same terms agreed to in the CCLA. There is, in fact, no need for any software grant at this point because we have already agreed that all of Day's employee contributions (even the people who we haven't listed yet) are covered by the CCLA. If David writes to you and says "this contribution is covered by the terms of the existing CCLA", then that is a legally binding statement and every bit as enforceable as a new document. </qoute> So, I think if you just have David validate to the Felix community with an ACK that this is Ok, I think we are more than covered... (Or is Day different from day.com??) Cheers Niclas
