On Wednesday 30 May 2007 12:42, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Mmm - bzzz - that's incorrect. You'll recall you signed a legally binding > document to become a committer?
Hmmmm... Now when you mention it, it is actually quite interesting. First of all the ICLA is not a contract (from the little I know of contract law there must be 'something for something' exchanged between two parties), it is a license. "I" voluntarily provide rights[1] to ASF. It is for ASF to use those rights or not to its own discretion. Right? So, anyone can actually fax that license to the Secretary of ASF, and by filing the license in the foundation's records, ASF still has no contractual/legal obligation towards the sender of the fax. ASF never enters a contract with the committer. The act of signing and faxing the license to ASF, is not something that the PMCs can oversee (other than "don't grant commit rights if no CLA on file"), as that is for the individual to do. He/she got the "legal consequence" as soon as that document reaches ASF. So, I honestly fail to see where it becomes a "legal consequence" to the _ASF_ that a person is provided commit access to a codebase. It is definately not in the act of sending the CLA. Allowing the user to commit, doesn't look like a legal action either, and if 'reception of a commit' is the actual legal act, then every commit must be under the microscope of the PMCs and becomes unmanagable, and the CLA is there to prevent that. Perhaps you can provide a better angle. [1] Also that IP rights you contribute is yours to do so, and if not it is your fault and not ASF's. You effectively indemnify ASF against claims on IP rights you have committed to the codebases. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
