--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eike Rathke wrote: .. > > > > There are people who won't sign whatever CA, call it > > philosophical conception, due to history especially > > not if it's for OOo. If contributions are welcome > > only under iCLA you probably won't see them > > showing up here. > > > I agree: none of the projects I usually participate in ask for signatures. The few that require them (NetBSD IIRC) only ask for committers to accept a CLA. OpenOffice is probably a special case wrt patents and that's a special strength behind the Apache License so I think it's good in case of big contributions (like IBM's) to have such a document but otherwise I don't think it's standard practice on Apache to ask for signatures for small contributions. > I sometimes wonder if we'd have greater acceptance of the > iCLA if we called it something else, a name that did not > include "CLA" in it? > It looks like SUN's developer agreement left deep scars in the community. It's common practice to assume that developers know and accept the license of the code they are contributing to. What I've seen in other list (tag all patches and postings with licenses) is rather weird. Pedro.
