Okay, I think this thread is clearing up the issues pretty well. The iCLA is the most important part in this case, and will be much easier to get through with everyone than a license grant.
Technically "The Open For Business Project" is a legal entity, but it doesn't really own any of the code as it has never had any money or paid anyone to write anything. Everything is a contribution from an individual (sometimes working for a company) and so we (contributors to OFBiz) will all need to submit an iCLA and perhaps in certain cases a cCLA.
We'll get going on the list and start sending out requests... -David On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:On 08.02.2006 09:48:39 Justin Erenkrantz wrote:On 2/7/06, David E. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Are there any guidelines about the size of a code contribution that would necessitate a license grant document?You would just need a CLA not a software grant form for each contributor.That seems contradictory to what the IP clearance page says. Now I'm totally confused because that would mean we don't need that complex process of getting the software grant together for that contributionwe're planning to integrate in Apache FOP because we have ICLAs on filefor all three contributors.The reason is that the Software Grant is a legal vehicles that says "I/We own this software and we are granting it to the ASF". So unless there is a legal entity that owns the code, they cannot grant it to the ASF to allow us to relicense it. In that case, each person who ever committed a line of code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches (and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
