[Devel] Proposed contribution agreement, seeking feedback
mss at msquadrat.de
Mon May 23 13:43:58 CEST 2016
just for the record: The old CLA I signed at some point (version 3.0) can
still be found here:
In case somebody else wants to compare them :-)
On Monday, 23 May 2016 13:28:48 CEST Malte Stretz wrote:
> I'll forward the document to our lawyer to see what he has to say. Some
> things I noticed after a quick glance:
> * In §2.1.ii the terms "each party", "either party" (both in (a)) and the
> term "we" (in (c)) aren't defined. I assume that the former means Synacor
> and its sublicenssees but is the grantee included as well? The "we" most
> probably is Synacor or does it also include the sublicensees?
> * §2.2 sounds rather broad, as if the grantee would grant any possible
> patents to Synacor, even totally unrelated ones to the Contribution.
> * Maybe far fetched but there might be an issue in §1.6 when I submit test
> cases or (modified) log files from customers on which I don't have the
> rights to assign rights. Once I signed this CLA I'd implicitly assign the
> rights to Synacor unless I don't forget to mark them as "Not A
> Contribution". Which might get nasty in the future, depending on the
> interpretation of §1.4 (a testcase might be considered an act of
> documentation and the bar of what is considered a "work of authorship" is
> sometimes low).
> * Is this a company or a personal CLA? From my experience of signing these
> things there is some kind of difference and many organizations have two
> different ones (the question who has to sign it is mostly answered by some
> legal voodoo).
> * It would be great if for each term there was a human-readable paragraph
> which explains the intentions behind it.
> On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 13:12:46 CEST Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > Attached is the proposed contribution agreement for contributing works to
> > Zimbra. Comments welcome.
> > --Quanah
More information about the Devel