Contributor licensing agreements (CLAs in short) have gained a lot of views in recent years, with some leading open source projects choosing to take over. If all the cool kids do it, should your open source project? Probably not. As a result, some CLAs also require the contributor to grant a patent license that prevents the author of a contribution to the open source project from subsequently claiming patent infringements on the basis of the contribution. Google Individual CLA is an example of a contribution agreement, including a patent license. Canonical launched Project Harmony “… to help organizations, use contribution agreements by providing standardized variable models with clear and concise explanations… [37] TL;DR: a “nice to have” for many open source projects supported by companies create a development experience hostile to dues, require considerable administrative effort, defer the legal responsibility of the least armed party to defend itself, and are useless in the face of the modern development tool. Among the projects for which contributors must sign this agreement: [35] At Canonical, we manage many open source projects and we must have agreements with all those involved. This is the easiest way for you to give us permission to use your contributions. In fact, give us a license, but you still own the copyright – so you have the right to change your code and use it in other projects. Many CLAs require the contribution to become the exclusive property of the project. As our product is made up of many small parts, I could easily see where a developer would hesitate.

B to provide a particular monitoring code, for example, if he could not use it elsewhere. This agreement allows the author to preserve copyright and assign copyright to the project. In order to clarify the intellectual property license granted by contributions from an individual or organization, Google LLC (“Google”) must have a De Contributor Licensing Agreement (CLA) signed by each participant, which gives consent to the license conditions listed below. This license is used to protect you as a contributor and to protect Google; it does not change your rights to use your own contributions for other purposes. Perhaps you should advance an extended version of this comment as a rebuttal article to the editor. Being a comment doesn`t do everything you wrote. Just a thought… Most open source developers are not lawyers, and they shouldn`t have to contribute. If a project optimizes the developer`s experience in the hope of maximizing contributions, then it would be antithetical to require a contributor to hire an external consultant to properly evaluate what they agree with or, in many cases, to receive the sign from their employer`s business advisor before it can contribute to a frustrating experience that can even carry the smallest contributions from minutes to weeks. provided the developer finally gets approval, a result that is not guaranteed in many corporate cultures. One of the most common problems is that the git-author email of the commit is not an email address linked to a CLA.

The solution is to change the git-author email as an address covered by the CTC. This email should also be added to your GitHub account. This is not necessarily the main email, but it should be on the account. For contributors covered by a corporate CTC, this should normally be their business email address, or anything that has been added to the authorized group of participants in the company`s CLA. Many upstream projects require all contributors to agree on the rules for registering their code. We encourage Ubuntu members to support those who work with upstream contributors to patches to these projects or direct contributions.

Posted in: Uncategorized.
Last Modified: April 15, 2021