[cle-release-team] [sakai-pmc] Managing CLA's with new contributions

[Kirschner, Beth]

+1

This makes sense to me. Everyone who reviews and commits patches should make a judgement call on whether or not the patch constituties significant "intellectual property"  or just a bug-fix/minor-enhancement. When in doubt, we should ask.

- Beth

On Mar 12, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Neal Caidin <neal.caidin at apereo.org> wrote:

> [Sakai PMC and Sakai Core Team]
> 
> Howdy folks,
> 
> I've been trying to get my brain wrapped around how to best manage 
> incoming contributions and CLAs. From talking (virtually) with the 
> Apereo Licensing group and based on the Apereo licensing documentation 
> [1] , it seems that the spirit or intention is that small fixes do not 
> need CLA's but larger and more complex contributions do need CLA's 
> (corporate Contributor License Agreements - CCLA's ; and individual 
> Contributor Licenses - iCLA's).
> 
> One suggestion from Dr. Chuck is that at some point a "patch" becomes a 
> contribution when it includes new significant IP rather than just fixing 
> a bug or glitch and that it is up to those who have commit privileges to 
> make sure not to commit something large from a person that does not have 
> a CCLA.  Does everyone agree with this characterization?
> 
> [1] Apereo licensing documentation - http://www.apereo.org/licensing
> 
> Thanks,
> Neal
> 
> 
> -- 
> Neal Caidin
> Sakai Community Coordinator
> Apereo Foundation
> neal.caidin at apereo.org
> Skype me! (but let me know in advance for the first interaction) - nealkdin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sakai-pmc mailing list
> sakai-pmc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-pmc