On 28/02/2012 17:19, Glenn Adams wrote:
Hi Benson, Glenn, Alexis,
benson, thanks for that clarification, i see in [1] that though an
ICLA is not required of a contributor, it is nevertheless desirable to
have one submitted; so, Alexios, if you wish to submit an ICLA please
do so; however, given the limited scope of the patch, I would agree
that it is not strictly required, and the lack of one should not
impede applying the patch
One of the duties of a PMC is to make sure ICLAs are in place for code
contributions. The board doesn't provide strict guidelines on when ICLAs
should be provided, it just says it's desirable as Glenn indicated.
Therefore it's up to each project PMC to decide exactly when ICLAs
should be requested or not. The XML Graphics PMC has discussed this in
the past and came up with the following guidelines:
An ICLA should be requested if any of the following is true:
1. If new files are added by the patch
2. The patch touches several classes and the changes are not insignificant.
3. The contributor has submitted several patches.
I've taken a brief look at the patch submitted by Alexis and feel that
rule 2 is met and therefore it is right that an ICLA is filed. Alexis
has now done this, but I thought I ought to clarify the XML Graphics
PMC's position on ICLAs.
Thanks,
Chris
glenn
[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Benson Margulies
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
an icla is not required for a patch attached to a bz unless it is
of unusual size or not coded be the bz submitter.
On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I support committing this patch, however I don't see an ICLA
listed at [1] for Alexios. Alexios, if you have not submitted an
ICLA [2], please do so.
I would be happy to apply the patch (if Mehdi doesn't have the time).
[1] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#unlistedclas
[2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
