[License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

[Engel Nyst]

On 01/17/2015 01:57 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> OSI's criteria for open source licenses doesn't include any review of
> whether the *license used inbound* would be respectful of developers'
> rights and desires for the use of their code, encourage healthy
> collaboration in the community of developers, allow for ongoing
> maintenance of an established codebase by an ever-changing group of
> developers, empower groups who want to do active GPL enforcement,
> etc, etc.
[my emphasis]

I see your point. I agree these issues are not part of a review for OSD
compliance.

The relevant aspect here, seems to me, is that OSI's criteria for open
source licenses *include* whether the *license used inbound* is giving
rights to anyone receiving the software, as set out in the OSD.

Anyone includes the "project", a legal entity behind the project, the
interest groups around a project, just like it includes individual
users, recipients of the software from the original developer or
project, etc.

OSI criteria do this by OSD #5, #6 and #7.

> A single legal document is perfectly adequate to cover both
> contribution and receiving, and I expect any license OSI has approved
> would be fine used inbound=outbound. But when OSI approves a license
> it is only making a statement that the license meets the outbound
> criteria of the OSD.

 From the above, it follows that when OSI approves a license, it is
making a statement that the license meets the criteria of the OSD,
*whether used inbound or outbound*.

(Therefore, I don't guess it would be fine used inbound=outbound. It is
fine. It *has* to be. Solely from the perspective of the rights set out
in OSD, that is.)


-- 
~ "We like to think of our forums as a Free-Speech Zone. And freedom
works best at the point of a bayonet." (Amazon, Inc.)