[mapguide-internals] RE: CLA

Jason Birch Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca
Fri Mar 6 14:46:44 EST 2009

I'm not sure how you would determine that either.  If the patch contains
substantial new work, it may be subject to copyright.  If it contains
unique methods, it may be subject to patent.

I guess could stick with the current system, but only apply substantial
patches if can obtain a CLA. Otherwise would have to abandon the patch
for new features or, for non-obvious bug fixes, recreate independently.

Basically, if someone submitted IP-encumbered code without being able to
sign the CLA, I think the patch should probably be deleted because we
don't have rights to it.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Fukushima
Sent: March-06-09 11:40 AM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: [mapguide-internals] RE: CLA

I thought that for small bug fixes, a CLA wasn't required, but for more
substantial fixes, we should ensure that a CLA exists.  Is this still
the case (actually, I'm not exactly sure how to decide when something is
substantial or not outside of just using my best judgment)?  If we are,
then the statement you propose seems a little severe; or maybe I'm just
reading it wrong.

On another note. What if someone submits a patch for a defect fix, but
then cannot sign the CLA for some reason; how do we get the patch in? 

More information about the mapguide-internals mailing list