On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 04:31:03PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:13:44PM -0400, Nick Chase wrote: > As far as what I remember about the previous expedition: > > In order for us to officially change the license, we needed to find a way to: > > a) Add the new license to the overall CLA and get everyone to sign it
I don't understand this part -- why would the CLA need to specify what the outbound documentation license is? On the software side, the CLA does not specify that code will be licensed under the Apache License. What constrains the Foundation to distributing CLA-licensed code under the Apache License is the bylaws IP policy, not anything in the CLA itself.
Got it, thanks for clarifying. I should not try to understand nor explain anything while on vacation. :)
My misunderstanding is around "what mechanism do contributors have to understand how their contribution is licensed?"
I mistakenly thought the CLA had words to explain that. I've read it with that need in mind, and indeed, it does not specify licensing.
Actually there's a good argument the CLA *should* specify this, so I didn't mean to suggest it is a bad idea. (That would make the CLA somewhat more like the DCO in some respects.) RF