[License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs

[Ben Tilly]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:09 PM,  <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> Allison Randal scripsit:
>
>> If you want specific examples, I'd say GPL and Apache both work fine
>> with inbound=outbound. GPL takes a position close to compelling
>> inbound=outbound. Apache 2.0 was specifically designed with
>> inbound=outbound in mind, you can see fingerprints of it all over the
>> text.
>
> I cannot imagine any open source license (other than un-templated ones with
> hard-coded licensors) that *cannot* work as an inbound license.  Does
> anyone have counterexamples?

Here is a simple example.

A project using http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause has
marketing comparing it to Foo's project Bar.  But no prior written
permission from Foo was obtained for this.  If Foo looks at the
project, notices a bug, and submits a patch under the same license,
the project can't apply that patch without violating the license.

>> I totally support campaigning for inbound=outbound and DCO,
>
> What does DCO mean in this context?
>
> --
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty.  --Oscar Wilde
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss