Projects that require contributors to sign the agreement include:  The Apache 2.0 license actually contains an explicit condition of license stipulating that patches sent to the upstream project are granted by default on the same terms in which the contributor received the project code — the Apache 2.0 license. As of August 2011, Canonical requires that contributions be licensed under a harmonic contribution licensing agreement, not the copyright awarded to Canonical.  With the Harmony CLA, “the Canonical contributor gives the license to use their contributions. The contributor retains the copyright to the contribution, with full right to reuse, rebroadcast and subsequently modify the associated code, so that he can share this contribution with other projects.  With respect to the last point, a third particular feature of the OpenStack-CLA system, given the legal justifications put forward for its support, is that the rigour of its application is fully applied on the ICLA side, whereas the CCLA requirement appears to be a kind of honour system. For example, some of the legal justifications that have been made to support the OpenStack CLA system center on patent licenses in the CLA (despite the fact that the Apache 2.0 license itself contains a very similar patent license). But it`s pretty obvious that OpenStack`s individual contributors probably won`t hold patents themselves (now or in the future), let alone patents that are of undeniable importance for what they contribute or contribute to. It is certainly more conceivable that their employers have such patents, but then why is so much effort being made to ensure that no patches enter the file without an ICLA and that no comparable effort is made to verify patches for autographed CCLAs? Apache-style CLAs are similar to copyright allocation in that they are statutory asymmetric legal mechanisms that control how contributions to entity-favouring open source projects are made, and in both cases the contributor has granted the preferred organization a wide range of rights.  There appears to be a broader rejection of copyright than against CLAs in the Apache style, but from a contributor`s point of view, the difference in many respects is more a matter of form than substance.
If one of your contributions to Django is created by someone else as part of your job, the job may not belong to them. It may belong to its employer. In this case, your employer or someone who can represent the company in licensing must sign the company`s version of the Licensing Agreement in order for this contribution to be accepted at Django. You must include the names of all developers (you and all those covered by this agreement) who are able to submit contributions on behalf of the employer. This list can be updated if new people are employmented or leaving. Apache Software Foundation uses various licenses to distribute software and documentation, accept regular contributions from individuals and businesses, and accept larger grants for existing software.