[License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

[Engel Nyst]

On 01/16/2015 08:02 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> The text is out-of-date, and wrong in some places.
>
> OSI is in the process of a refresh on the whole site, updating or
> removing a lot of old cruft, and this will get swept as part of it.

That's good to hear, thank you.

>> If OSI wants to discuss or inform the larger community about CLAs,
>> this doesn't seem accurate language for doing so.
>
> I'm not convinced that OSI needs to explain contributor agreements.
> We do periodically get asked to review contributor agreements, so
> it's important to have some kind of statement making it clear that
> OSI reviews *outbound* open source licenses, and not *inbound*
> agreements. It also doesn't review the use of open source licenses
> as inbound=outbound.

Reviewing doesn't seem to have anything to do with it indeed, but other
than that I'm not sure I understand the difference you feel important
here. An open source license is "inbound" or "outbound" depending only
on the position /of the speaker/. There is no absolute direction, it's
relative to the speaker.

Am I looking at some code I wrote, or am I looking at code someone else
wrote. Why is that relevant?

There is probably no way to make a statement like this without taking a
position, and the above does that. It's saying that "inbound agreements"
are something else than open licenses, fulfill an unspecified need that
open licenses don't. That open licenses are meant to be "outbound" (to
whom?). That alone contributes to confusion about open source licensing.

One cannot say that open licenses are meant to be "outbound" without
implying that when you receive them (so inbound from your perspective)
you may need something else. It's synonym with: they weren't meant to be
"received", they were only meant to be "sent" (?). They, well, might
also work when you're at the "receiving" end, but weren't written for it.

> It also doesn't review the use of open source licenses as
> inbound=outbound.

I honestly don't see how OSI can do otherwise than make a clear
statement that the OSD guarantees all rights one needs to *receive* to
be able to further copy, distribute, modify, include or make derivative
works of, under the conditions of the respective open source license.

Endorsing the distinction between inbound and outbound as if it was
objectively meaningful, and placing open licenses on the outbound side
is, in the best case, like saying: "OSI reviews licenses to guarantee
developers that they give the necessary rights to anyone, but it doesn't
review if, as far as the license is concerned, you receive these
rights". That doesn't make any sense to me.


-- 
  "Excuse me, Professor Lessig, may I ask you to sign this CLA, so we can
*legally* have your permission to remix and distribute your CC-licensed
works?"
  ~ Permission culture, take two.