I would like to emphasise again that this change in adding jira-users, does not change Hive's policy regarding ICLA. In hive, we never required people to file ICLA before submitting a patch.
Your question regarding ICLA requirements merits a discussion on its own. Even if ICLA is on file, that does not automatically imply that the contributor had all rights to contribute. It just means that such a contributor has lied, if he didn't have rights to contribute. On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Sushanth Sowmyan <khorg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will defer to the larger community's opinion on this, and from the > looks of it, Apache does suggest, but not require (but does heavily > suggest as desired) an ICLA from contributors, but I kinda agree with > https://julien.ponge.org/blog/in-defense-of-contributor-license-agreements/ > in the place ICLAs have with projects. > > The relevant portion, as I see it, is this: > >>> Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this >>> Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software >>> distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, >>> no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, >>> prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, >>> sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. >> This is, I think, the first key point. Contributors explictly grant a >> license to the upstream project maintainers to use contributions. >> Sublicensing is important, too, as it opens licensing under new terms in the >> future, even if the contributor is out of reach. > > I feel like without having an ICLA requirement for contributors(and > yes, I acknowledge that being a jira-user and requesting in the > mailing list did not already cover this - it was my mistaken memory > that felt like it did from back when the jira had a UI element > granting ASF rights), committers open themselves to the possibility > that we +1 and accept a contribution that we will wind up being > responsible for that should not have been legally acceptable. > > I also agree with Lefty that taken to an extreme, this could apply for > docs and wiki, etc, and that does sound ludicrous, but still a place > we open ourselves to legal responsibility. If $COMPANY sues apache > because we have some content in our wiki that we should not have, > removal is not hard. If that happens with our git repo, we're in for a > not-fun exercise in rewriting git history. > > I also concede the advantages in being more "open" by making it easier > to contribute, and indeed the link I paste above does refer to people > that will not contribute to a project that has a CLA requirement, but > I'm not completely satisfied by not addressing this issue in some > manner either. > > This is not a -1 for this move, and indeed, would/could not be a > binding one even if it were so, but I would like to understand what > the hive project's legal position is on the cases where a committer > commits a patch that a contributor contributed that they did not have > rights to contribute. > > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I guess the limit is around the number of entries in the contributor >> group, and adding a jira-user group would not count towards that. >> Let me give it a try. >> >> That INFRA jira is another good reason to add jira-users group to >> contributors! >> >> >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Carl Steinbach <cwsteinb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> It turns out there's a limit on the number of people you can list as >>> "contributors" for any given JIRA project. I bumped into this a couple >>> months back when I tried adding someone to the list and found this: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7293 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sure, go for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Lefty >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > As Lefty noted, we don't require anyone being made a jira contributor >>>> > or uploading a patch to have ICLA on file. Apache does not require >>>> > that, though that is encouraged. >>>> > So allowing any user to be a contributor without asking for permission >>>> > does not change things with respect to ICLA. >>>> > >>>> > Looks like people are on board with this. I will change the settings >>>> > in another day as long as there are no objections. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Lefty Leverenz <leftylever...@gmail.com >>>> > >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > Hive only requires committers to sign ICLAs. That doesn't seem to >>>> > provide >>>> > > any legal protection when non-committers contribute patches. >>>> > > >>>> > > In days gone by, JIRA made us assign rights to Apache when we attached >>>> a >>>> > > patch to an issue. That's still in the instructions for Contributing >>>> > Your >>>> > > Work >>>> > > < >>>> > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/HowToContribute#HowToContribute-ContributingYourWork >>>> > >: >>>> > > "Please note that the attachment should be granted license to ASF for >>>> > > inclusion in ASF work" although the JIRA GUI doesn't have that option >>>> > > anymore. >>>> > > >>>> > > See Apache's page on licenses <http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>: >>>> > "The >>>> > > ASF desires that all contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to >>>> the >>>> > > Apache projects complete, sign, and submit (via postal mail, fax or >>>> > email) >>>> > > an Individual Contributor License Agreement" *(highlighting added)*. >>>> > > >>>> > > So documentation in the wiki should also be covered by ICLAs. Carried >>>> to >>>> > > extremes, anyone who participates on a mailing list, comments on a JIRA >>>> > > issue, or reviews a patch should sign an ICLA. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -- Lefty >>>> > > >>>> > > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Sushanth Sowmyan <khorg...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> I seem to remember something on the lines of that the traditional >>>> reason >>>> > >> was so that a project could be sure that the contributor had an ICLA >>>> on >>>> > >> file with apache so as to not expose the project to legal risk of code >>>> > that >>>> > >> was contributed that the contributor did not have any rights to. We >>>> > should >>>> > >> probably check with folks from other projects who've had experience >>>> > dealing >>>> > >> with stuff like this? >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Maybe Owen? >>>> > >> On May 2, 2015 17:08, "Thejas Nair" <thejas.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> > Sending again, didn't make to the list for some reason. >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> > >> > From: Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> >>>> > >> > Date: Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:53 PM >>>> > >> > Subject: [DISCUSS] Allow any jira user to assign HIVE bugs to them >>>> > self >>>> > >> > To: dev <dev@hive.apache.org> >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > I am not sure why a user needs to ask to be added as a contributor >>>> in >>>> > >> > HIVE jira to be able to assign jiras to themselves. I don't see it >>>> > >> > adding any value. Also the jira ADMIN UI for adding this is usually >>>> > >> > flaky. >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > I think we should let any jira users assign the bugs to them self. >>>> > >> > Looks like adding jira-users group to contributions would do it. >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Thoughts ? >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Thanks, >>>> > >> > Thejas >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> >>>> > >>>>
