[legal-discuss] CLA (was: Call for a clear COPYRIGHT-HOLDERS file in all OpenStack projects)

Richard Fontana rfontana at redhat.com
Tue Oct 22 16:33:17 UTC 2013

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:03:16PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:

> The CLA used by OpenStack projects does not entail the contributor
> saying "I am authorized to license the code I contribute under the
> license included with the code I contribute".  

Actually, thinking about Jeremy's reference to section 7 of the ICLA,
things are even more complex than I described because of the fact that
an ICLA-signing individual developer will in many cases not be the
copyright holder of the code being contributed that he or she wrote,
yet the ICLA might be said to apply to that act of contribution even
if the copyright holder has separately signed a CCLA (or even ICLA). 

In some cases it would seem that the ICLA signer is saying the
equivalent of (continuing to use language similar to what Jeremy used
in his message) 'I am authorized to contribute this code which my
employer has licensed under the Apache License 2.0'. In cases where
the employer has signed the CCLA, which may or may not be typical,
then you have the double license coming from the employer, and the
ICLA may or may not be applicable. In cases where the employer has not
signed the CCLA, there is a single (Apache License 2.0) license coming
from the employer. 

Anyway, this is way more complex than necessary. No other open source
project handles contributions like this. 

 - RF

More information about the legal-discuss mailing list