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

[Steve Swinsburg]

Are we able to have the ICLAs completed/signed online? Printing, signing,
scanning and emailing then waiting for a response is a bit of a PITA for
someone that might want to submit a small fix. It would be even better if
we could just have some sort of blanket statement that binds everyone, ie
"By submitting a code contribution you agree to the following..." and do
away with the CLAs altogether. Not sure if that is feasible or not.


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu> wrote:

> -1  Circling back.  I do not agree with this approach.  It introduces
> fuzzy logic that at some point could catch us out.
>
> 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?
>
>
> In my opinion, a signed iCLA needs to be on file before we accept a code
> contribution, irrespective of its size or character.  It's a simple rule
> and not all that hard to enforce.
>
> anthony whyte | its and mlibrary | university of michigan |
> arwhyte at umich.edu | 517-980-0228
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Kirschner, Beth wrote:
>
> +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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sakai-pmc mailing list
> sakai-pmc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-pmc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cle-release-team mailing list
> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/cle-release-team/attachments/20140318/c685fc7b/attachment.html