
Here is a list of persons who have signed a CLA [1] in file.

Name                     Location              Date
----                     --------              ----
Maarten Bosteels         Heverlee, Belgium     2007-01-15
John E. Conlon           WI, USA               2007-02-08
Ralph W. Goers Jr.       CA, USA               2008-07-24
Matt Humphreys           London, UK            2008-08-16
Thorbjorn Ravn Andersen  Hammel, Denmark       2008-08-16
Chad LaVigne             MN, USA               2009-03-25
Joern Huxhorn            Pfungstadt, Germany   2009-04-29
Thorsten Moeller         Basel, Switzerland    2009-11-16
Robert Elliot            Twickenham, UK        2010-03-08
Tomasz Nurkiewicz        Wegrow, Poland        2010-03-19
Aleksey Didik            S.Putilovskay, Russia 2010-03-26
Heiko Seeberger          Schondorf , Germany   2010-09-06
Ryan Cogswell            MN, USA               2011-07-07
Pierre Queinnec          Paris, France         2011-07-20
Anthony Trinh            MA, USA               2012-05-10
Torsten Juergeleit       Liederbach, Germany   2012-05-13
Cedric Lime              Levallois-Perret, FR  2012-06-08
Christian Trutz          Mark, Germany         2012-06-14
Les Hazlewood            CA, USA               2012-09-10
Libor Jelinek            Czech Republic        2012-09-17
Matthew Bishop           Vancouver, Canada     2012-09-18

Justification for CLAs
----------------------

There is no denying that the CLA requirement adds overhead. However,
the CLA offers several advantages:

advantage 1) having a CLA on file for all contributors provides
reassurance to downstream users. For example, IP officers from Eclipse
contact QOS.ch at regular intervals asking whether QOS.ch has CLA for
all SLF4J and logback contributions.

advantage 2) allows QOS.ch to change the software license as long as
the change is not contrary to public interest. This allowed QOS.ch to
add Eclipse Public License 1.0 (in addition to LGPL) in logback
version 0.9.18. This was undoubtedly a net gain for those wishing to
use logback and it was a fairly painless process. Without the CLA on
file, dual-licensing logback would have been near impossible.

advantage 3) by virtue of clause 3 of the CLA, the contributor vouches
for his/her contributions as his/her own. Thus, QOS.ch takes a lesser
risk when distributing software because QOS.ch can claim that some
vetting has been performed (due dillegence).

A more neutral discussion of CLAs can be found at [2].

BTW, the CLA can be sent to Ceki directly by email (a scanned copy is
fine).

[1] http://logback.qos.ch/cla.txt
[2] http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla.xml

