On 20.12.2007, at 20:54, David Zülke wrote:
Am 20.12.2007 um 19:25 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is.
The purpose is that a project/company/whoever has written
confirmation that the developer who contributes something gives the
respective entity full permission and license on copyright and,
should he own any that cover the contribution, patents.
My understand is that with all contributions done under a CLA it
becomes fairly easy for all users of the code to simply point
anyone sueing to the relevant contributor. The given code can be
replaced and life goes on except for the contributor. Without a
CLA is becomes much harder for the various users to pull their
head out of things as easily, which means they will have a much
greater interest in getting the case dismissed entirely.
No, that is not correct. With and without a CLA, the contributor
who commits something on which Foo, Inc. holds a patent, is the
originator of the patent breach. A CLA does not change that, nor
protect from that. The patent holder can, with and without the CLA,
still sue both you and the project you made the contribution to.
I wonder why they need such elaborate bla bla to just say so trivial
things. The copyright part seems irrelevant given your assessment and
the patent clause seems overly complex if all they are saying that
any patents that are infringed upon by the contribution that are
owned by the contributor must be licensed royalty free for all users
of said code. The level of protection for end users seems laughable
to me, since there are still so many holes open for evil doers aka
patent trolls can exploit. So I guess CLA are only a major annoyance
and placebo.
So more trivial CLA are made to be, the less of a point I see in them.
regards,
Lukas
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
