Open Stack

I agree with Mark McLoughlin that the CLA may seem redundant and I also
see how changing that mechanism is too complicated, at the moment. I
think it's better to focus on improving what we have and consider it a
tech debt, to be fixed in the future.

On 04/22/2014 05:28 PM, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
> The potential contributor should be able to derive comfort from the
> fact that hundreds of companies have signed the OpenStack CLA without
> changes (we have never agreed to any changes and Apache has also not
> agreed to changes in its CLA on which our CLA is based) and thousands
> (maybe tens of thousands) have signed the Apache CLA.  My experience
> is that many "legal" agreements are signed without legal review
> particularly if the agreement cannot be changed, so I think that your
> proposed scenario is not as common as you suggest.

That's good to know, Mark. If I understand you correctly, one possible
response to small shops feeling uneasy about the Corporate/Individual
CLA is to reassure them that our agreement is a standard, never
modified, and it's very safe to sign without much questions...

I'm not sure how to put it down in a safe, reassuring way though. Would
a brief paragraph in an email be enough? Mark (Radcliffe): can you help
draft a standard response to people like the one quoted before?

Maybe we want to add something like the 'license deed' provided by
Creative Commons somewhere on our pages? Given that developers/operators
seem to be afraid of diving into a legal nightmare with strange
contracts to sign, "human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for)
the license" may help, too.

 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Thoughts?

/stef

-- 
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org