On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 04:32, Duncan Findlay wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:52:29PM +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote: > > > The current CLA-handling is pretty suboptimal and slows down the > > > contribution process very much. Somehow this got to be improved. > > > > I thought the new Apache License 2.0 takes care of that. Item 5 says > > > > "Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any > > Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to > > the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, > > without any additional terms or conditions." > > IANAL, but I would suspect that this doesn't cover all cases.
It is supposed to, but it shouldn't sneak up on people. > Firstly, this depends on someone agreeing to our license. Sure, they can't use > our software without agreeing. Exactly, it would be more apparent after the first ASF SA release, under the new license. > Suppose, however, we have someone that > translates rule description, and they have never used SpamAssassin (or > never in its Apache 2.0 form). Their contribution would not be covered > under this clause. I admit, this is a very specific (hypothetical) > example that may not actually apply to anyone; however, it's worth > thinking about. We need to put the implicit contribution text in various places, like the welcome message when subscribing to the dev list, the bugzilla front page, on the website where it states how to contribute. > I think we're on better legal ground if everyone signs a CLA > (especially if it's major). Having a signed CLA on file never hurts. Sander
