Earliest use of Fedora CLA

[Richard Fontana]

Hi,

Does anyone happen to know when precisely the old Fedora CLA (not the
current FPCA) began to be used? The presumably ancestral Apache
Software Foundation Individual CLA was adopted by the ASF on
2004-06-23, which was in between the release of Fedora Core 2 and
Fedora Core 3.

Richard

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On 2016-05-20 09:04, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  Does anyone happen to know when precisely the old Fedora CLA (not
> the
>  current FPCA) began to be used? The presumably ancestral Apache
>  Software Foundation Individual CLA was adopted by the ASF on
>  2004-06-23, which was in between the release of Fedora Core 2 and
>  Fedora Core 3. 
So my understanding is that the CLA was put in place as a requirement of 
CVS access during development/merger of Fedora Extras 3 (previous 
versions were hosted by the external fedora.us project).  You'd think 
there would be some big announcement about this somewhere, but I haven't 
found it yet.

At this point there didn't seem to be a procedure in place:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-January/msg00046....

An interim procedure arose shortly thereafter, but implies that no 
non-RH packagers had CVS access yet:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-February/msg00208...

The earliest mentions of the CLA I could find were:

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00046.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00830.html

The process was already automated the following month:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-April/msg00495.html

HTH,
-- 
Yaakov Selkowitz
Software Engineer - Platform Enablement Group
Red Hat, Inc.

[Richard Fontana]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:47:34PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>  On 2016-05-20 09:04, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  >Does anyone happen to know when precisely the old Fedora CLA (not the
>  >current FPCA) began to be used? The presumably ancestral Apache
>  >Software Foundation Individual CLA was adopted by the ASF on
>  >2004-06-23, which was in between the release of Fedora Core 2 and
>  >Fedora Core 3.
>  
>  So my understanding is that the CLA was put in place as a requirement of 
>  CVS access during development/merger of Fedora Extras 3 (previous 
>  versions were hosted by the external fedora.us project).  You'd think 
>  there would be some big announcement about this somewhere, but I haven't 
>  found it yet.
>  
>  At this point there didn't seem to be a procedure in place:
>  
>  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-January/msg00046....
>  
>  An interim procedure arose shortly thereafter, but implies that no 
>  non-RH packagers had CVS access yet:
>  
>  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-February/msg00208...
>  
>  The earliest mentions of the CLA I could find were:
>  
>  http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00046.html 
Also, without mentioning the CLA by name:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00350.html

> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00830.html
>  
>  The process was already automated the following month:
>  
>  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-April/msg00495.html 
Very helpful, thank you!

Richard

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 10:04:08 AM CDT Richard Fontana wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  Does anyone happen to know when precisely the old Fedora CLA (not the
>  current FPCA) began to be used? The presumably ancestral Apache
>  Software Foundation Individual CLA was adopted by the ASF on
>  2004-06-23, which was in between the release of Fedora Core 2 and
>  Fedora Core 3.
>  
>  Richard 
Do you want the mail in CLA we started with? or some of the itterations after?

Dennis

[Richard Fontana]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 02:01:42PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>  On Friday, May 20, 2016 10:04:08 AM CDT Richard Fontana wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  > 
>  > Does anyone happen to know when precisely the old Fedora CLA (not the
>  > current FPCA) began to be used? The presumably ancestral Apache
>  > Software Foundation Individual CLA was adopted by the ASF on
>  > 2004-06-23, which was in between the release of Fedora Core 2 and
>  > Fedora Core 3.
>  > 
>  > Richard
>  
>  Do you want the mail in CLA we started with? or some of the itterations after? 
The earliest use of the agreement matching or approximating the one
preserved here, whether the procedure was mail-in or otherwise:
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/CLA> 

If there was a substantively different CLA or other comparable legal
instrument in use before adoption of that one, that would also be
interesting to know. I've been assuming that that document was the one
used from inception.

It seems as though there is no known recorded public announcement or
discussion of the introduction of the CLA requirement, which is odd.

Richard

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 10:04:08 AM CDT Richard Fontana wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  Does anyone happen to know when precisely the old Fedora CLA (not the
>  current FPCA) began to be used? The presumably ancestral Apache
>  Software Foundation Individual CLA was adopted by the ASF on
>  2004-06-23, which was in between the release of Fedora Core 2 and
>  Fedora Core 3.
>  
>  Richard
>  _______________________________________________
>  legal mailing list
>  legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail] 
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01170.html 
mentions there will be one. the thread at http://www.redhat.com/archives/
fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01170.html  announces cvs being open and 
says that legal details are still being worked out. I am failing at finding 
the email that went out when admin.fedora.redhat.com/accounts went up and 
people could sign up for accounts

Dennis

[Richard Fontana]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:25:44PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01170.html 
>  mentions there will be one. the thread at http://www.redhat.com/archives/
>  fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01170.html  announces cvs being open and 
>  says that legal details are still being worked out. I am failing at finding 
>  the email that went out when admin.fedora.redhat.com/accounts went up and 
>  people could sign up for accounts 
Excellent, thanks!

Richard

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 08:57:19PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:25:44PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>  > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01170.html 
>  > mentions there will be one. the thread at http://www.redhat.com/archives/
>  > fedora-devel-list/2004-November/msg01170.html  announces cvs being open and 
>  > says that legal details are still being worked out. I am failing at finding 
>  > the email that went out when admin.fedora.redhat.com/accounts went up and 
>  > people could sign up for accounts
>  Excellent, thanks! 
I have mine. It's from May 11, 2005. I'll send it when I'm on a better
internet connection.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Matthew Miller]

gOn Sat, May 21, 2016 at 03:03:48PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  I have mine. It's from May 11, 2005. I'll send it when
> I'm on a better
>  internet connection. 
Sorry, March, not May.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Matthew Miller]

Attached. As you can see, it's personalized to me. That may explain
why no public annoucment is easily findable — everyone got a personal,
unique email instead.

Note that the address and phone number here are no longer valid several
times over.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Richard Fontana]

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 02:47:16PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  Attached. As you can see, it's personalized to me. That may
> explain
>  why no public annoucment is easily findable — everyone got a personal,
>  unique email instead. 
Thanks. This seems to be essentially the same document as the Fedora
CLA that preceded adoption of the present-day FPCA. 

Richard