Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34195
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain bitxtender.com from 80.237.132.12 cause and error)
Cc: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>,
 php-dev <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <0D5FF13E-5CEE-43D6-BD32-8C29024CCBA5@bitxtender.com>
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>
In-Reply-To: <224F023F-79B2-4DBE-989F-E2D477157AEC@pooteeweet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:08:44 +0100
C-8D47-24DA655EBF0F@pooteeweet.org> <899E40FC-9AB5-462E-AEB6-770C424AB705@bitxtender.com> <224F023F-79B2-4DBE-989F-E2D477157AEC@pooteeweet.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;dz@bitxtender.com;1198228129;5b91282c;
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: CVSROOT / avail loginfo
From: dz@bitxtender.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?=)

Am 20.12.2007 um 23:43 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:

> On 20.12.2007, at 20:54, David Z=FClke wrote:
>
>> Am 20.12.2007 um 19:25 schrieb Lukas Kahwe Smith:
>>
>>> So maybe enlighten me what the purpose of the CLA is.
>>
>> The purpose is that a project/company/whoever has written =20
>> confirmation that the developer who contributes something gives the =20=

>> respective entity full permission and license on copyright and, =20
>> should he own any that cover the contribution, patents.
>>
>>
>>> My understand is that with all contributions done under a CLA it =20
>>> becomes fairly easy for all users of the code to simply point =20
>>> anyone sueing to the relevant contributor. The given code can be =20
>>> replaced and life goes on except for the contributor. Without a =20
>>> CLA is becomes much harder for the various users to pull their =20
>>> head out of things as easily, which means they will have a much =20
>>> greater interest in getting the case dismissed entirely.
>>
>> No, that is not correct. With and without a CLA, the contributor =20
>> who commits something on which Foo, Inc. holds a patent, is the =20
>> originator of the patent breach. A CLA does not change that, nor =20
>> protect from that. The patent holder can, with and without the CLA, =20=

>> still sue both you and the project you made the contribution to.
>
> I wonder why they need such elaborate bla bla to just say so trivial =20=

> things. The copyright part seems irrelevant given your assessment =20
> and the patent clause seems overly complex if all they are saying =20
> that any patents that are infringed upon by the contribution that =20
> are owned by the contributor must be licensed royalty free for all =20
> users of said code. The level of protection for end users seems =20
> laughable to me, since there are still so many holes open for evil =20
> doers aka patent trolls can exploit. So I guess CLA are only a major =20=

> annoyance and placebo.

The reason why they are so complicated is because they were written by =20=

lawyers. If they made contracts in such a way that mere mortals =20
understand them, the wouldn't be able to afford fast cars and big =20
houses.

The copyright part is not irrelevant. It is different from country to =20=

country. The copyright itself is transferrable in, for example, the =20
Netherlands and the United States, but not in Germany, Austria or =20
Switzerland. Most CLAs out there used by open source projects are =20
derived from the Apache Foundation CLA, which originates from the U.S.

And CLAs actually _do_ provide reasonable protection. The idea is that =20=

someone cannot sneak in code he has patents on, and later ask for =20
royalty fees. Same goes for people who contribute in goodwill, but =20
once the project is popular and successful, want a slice of the pie =20
for themselves. Or companies that allow their devs to contribute to an =20=

open source project, then a new manager decides that the company holds =20=

patents on the contributions and now wants money for it. It protects =20
everybody, and harms nobody (unless you have something against =20
granting rights to the project you're contributing to).

Hope that helps understand the matter a bit better.


David