On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on file > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF. A > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the company > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is being > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving the > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software grant > is typically the best way to do it.
I concur. Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software Grant would be appreciated. If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a problem? - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
