Open amercader opened 10 years ago
@amercader my understanding re the drafting here is that the tech team is not a legal entity that can be party to this agreement. To be clear, of course, in practice the people deciding whether to accept a patch will be the technical team but it just that in legal sense they are acting as agents of the actual legal entity making this agreement.
I'm not even sure why this needs to be in a CLA. It doesn't (to non-legally-trained me) seem like something that needs to be included to defend the IP in the project.
Its just reserving the right not to include a contribution even though both sides have made the agreement in the CLA. Again this seems to me of minor substantive importance but an example of crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's from the legal point of view. Are we happy to close this issue and accept this text in the agreement?
Maybe I am being naive, but having spoken with Francis Davey about associations previously he convinced me that we (Awesome Liverpool Foundation) could use http://create.oneclickorgs.com/organisations/new in the past to create legal entities. Is there a reason CKAN Assoc can't use this or something similar to become a legal entity so that it can be party to the CLA?
Can we move on this one. I think the question of distinct legal entity is in #5 - whatever the resolution there i would imagine this clause is useful in that clarifies that code does not have to be accepted.
If this means, "the decision to accept a patch, fix or new feature" I guess that it is up to the technical dev team, commiters or whatever is called, not the Open Knowledge Foundation