[License-discuss] Call for feedback on FLA-2.1_RC

[Matija Šuklje]

Hi all,

as things seem to have slowed down (read: I received no feedback) and at LLW 
the only thing attendees at the LLW had a heated debate over was how the 
current FLA-2.1_RC changes how we handle the definition of FOSS, I started a 
quick poll:

https://bigwhoop.wheremymonkeyis.at/apps/forms/s/TA7Gz3koWBmxXjS34df8cX5r

It is just one multiple-choice question, so please take the 2 minutes and vote 
for your fave.

As a gentle reminder, the discussion during the Q&A came to the conclusion 
that there is no good solution, we are simply looking for something that works 
and is the least bad option, so we can wrap it up.


cheers,
Matija

Dne četrtek, 17. september 2026 ob 22:06:20 Srednjeevropski poletni čas je 
Matija Šuklje napisal(a):
> Dear all,
> 
> something different for a change – I am looking for feedback on an _inbound_
> license agreement. Specifically, the newest revision of the Fiduciary
> License Agreement, which originates with the FSFE.
> 
> In case you missed it, the Fiduciary License Agreement – a/the balanced CLA 
> – version 2.1 has a release candidate ready and we would welcome feedback
> from this wonderful crowd of experts, to make sure the final version is as
> best as it can be.
> 
> To help with the brainstorming, here are some topics to consider:
> 
> • double-check the patent section – expert eyes welcome
> 
> • a better term for non-code contributions to replace “documentation” would
> be great, as well as having a fall-back (outbound) license option for that
> 
> • with “generative AI” looming over all of us, is there anything in the text
> that needs to be improved to account for that too?
> 
> • some have expressed concerns about FOSS licenses being defined as“terms of
> any licenses that qualify as [Free
> Software](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ free-sw.html) as defined by the
> Free Software Foundation and at the same time qualify as [Open
> Source](https://opensource.org/osd) as defined by the Open Source
> Initiative.” instead of OSI-approved AND/OR FSF-Free – the consensus in the
> room seems to have been, that there are no good options and we need to find
> consensus on what’s the least bad option.
> So, what _is_ the least bad option? :)
> 
> We intend to release the FLA-2.1 to the general public soon (in fact it is
> already passed our original plans), so .
> 
> For your convenience, I am attaching my slides from the LLW presentation.
> 
> Relevant links:
> 
> • current draft (click “changes” tab for a better overview) as changes to
> the FLA-2.0:
> <https://github.com/contributoragreements/ca-cla-chooser/pull/94/>
> 
> • a diff viewer for different (2.1_RC) options selected in the CLA chooser –
> both for the FLA and beyond the FLA (kudos: Florian):
> <https://contributoragreements.org/ca-cla-chooser/viewer.html>
> 
> • the standard way of obtaining the FLA-2.1(_RC) is to go to
> ContributorAgreements.org and going through the CLA chooser by keeping the
> defaults as they are – they default to FSFE’s FLA:
> <https://contributoragreements.org/ca-cla-chooser/>
> 
> • issues that are still open (some can be postponed to 3.0):
> <https://github.com/contributoragreements/ca-cla-chooser/issues>
> 
> 
> kind regards,
> Matija
> —
> P.S. If anyone wants to be deeply involved with the FLA, we have a separate
> mailing list too.
> P.P.S. Before anyone complains: I’m not saying you need a CLA, but I’m
> saying that if you do happen to need a CLA, the FLA is arguably the best
> option for a FOSS (or dual-licensed) project. Please don’t roll your own,
> and definitely not a CAA.


-- 
gsm:    tel:+386.41.849.552
www:    https://matija.suklje.name
xmpp:   hook at campfire.wheremymonkeyis.at
matrix: @hook:kompot.si