[License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

[Radcliffe, Mark]

I am the counsel to OSI.  As Allison noted, most OSI approved licenses can be used for inbound use, but we do not take a position on that issue in approving licenses.  Different communities have different approaches, the Apache Software Foundation uses specific CLAs for its projects (and some projects using the Apache Software License use the ASL as the CLA) and FSF has long used an assignment approach.  Thus, the approval of a license by OSI as meeting the criteria of the OSD does not reflect a review of the use of the license as "inbound" but only "outbound".

-----Original Message-----
From: license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Engel Nyst
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 11:14 AM
To: license-discuss
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

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.) _______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.