Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Add CLA for contributions + Foundation

Le 21/01/13 16:27, Ludovic Dubost a écrit : This does not mean the XWiki trademark would be handed over to the foundation, right ? Just that the under the umbrela of the foundation, the trademark can be used within a certain framework ? (Just want to make sure I understand right).

The foundation sounds like a good idea. Would it accept other projects under its umbrella ?

Jerome > On the ability to change the licence it's something that is worth a > discussion. > > Ludovic > > > > > 2013/1/19 Caleb James DeLisle <calebdelisle(a)lavabit.com> > >> Hi Vincent, >> >> The only reason I see for a CLA is to allow the organization to relicense >> the >> code under a different license. Being difficult to re-license makes the >> project more stable and I don't see any major problems with the LGPL. >> >> The idea that "every project needs a CLA" which seems to be implied by >> oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla is easily dispelled by the fact that Linux, >> one of the largest and most successful FOSS projects in the world, requires >> only a promise that the contributor are able to license the code under GPL. >> >> What are your reasons for the CLA proposal? >> >> In the case of the node.js license, you are forced to grant Joyent inc >> permission to license your work any way they see fit, including >> proprietary. >> This makes node.js project subject to the whim of Joyent's directors. >> >> From a technical perspective, extracting a signature from everyone who has >> ever contributed a patch to XWiki would be very difficult and there would >> inevitably remain code within the codebase which was not transferred. >> >> On the point of SF Conservancy and SPI, I would be guarded about >> transferring a license to an organization until I knew the organization >> (who runs it, what internal controls does it have) and had an assessment of >> the dollar value of such a transfer. Just to pull out a number, the >> codebase is probably worth somewhere in the 10's of millions of $. >> >> >> >> Fortunately we're all pretty friendly in this community so a lot of the >> darker what-if's just never come up but I think we should still remain >> vigilant about new legal structures, especially if they involve putting >> trust in people who none of us know. >> >> Thanks, >> Caleb >> >> >> >> >> On 01/17/2013 05:19 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> I'd like to propose the following: >>> * That we start asking for a CLA for contributions (and also for current >> committers) >>> * That we keep the process lightweight in order to not make it harder to >> contribute to the xwiki project. For this I propose to use >> http://www.clahub.com/ >>> In order to understand why we need a CLA read: >>> * http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla >>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement >>> >>> If we agree we then need to define our CLA. I think a good starting >> point could be the Node.js one: >>> http://nodejs.org/cla.html >>> >>> Now I don't think the CLA will have any legal value if we cannot define >> "the XWiki project" as a legal entity. >>> Thus I believe we need to start by joining some foundation or creating >> one. >>> I'll list some easy possibilities: >>> * SF Conservancy: http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ >>> * SPI: http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/ >>> * Create our own Not for profit association >>> >>> Harder possibilities (need to change license, rename project, etc): >>> * Join ASF >>> * Join Eclipse (and be forced to use bugzilla as the issue tracker ;)) >>> >>> We also need to check if OW2 could offer that service of being a legal >> entity for XWiki. >>> Personally I'm tempted more by our own association (it's quite easy to >> create one if we don't need to accept money and a bit more complex if we >> want to accept money but still doable). My second choice goes to SFC. >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent