[License-discuss] Contributor Clauses in Licenses

[McCoy Smith]

i thought it was whether it was ok to put a contribution agreement into 
an outbound OS license.

but maybe i don't know either.....

On 12/8/2025 9:18 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> That's the Apache language. I read that as the grant of a license. But 
> I've also lost the thread of what we're talking about!
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek.
> Chestek Legal
> 4641 Post St.
> Unit 4316
> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal
> www.chesteklegal.com
>
>
> On 12/8/2025 4:42 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>> I suppose it depends on the text.
>>
>> For example: https://opensource.org/license/ecl-2-0
>>
>> (you need to read both definition of Contribution and Sec. 5).
>>
>> [note it does reference the copyright holder, so presumably would 
>> only cover copyrightable contributions, but if they aren't 
>> copyrightable, as you note, you don't need permission to use them]
>>
>> On 12/8/2025 4:31 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>>> I don't know if your comment was directed at something Josh said or 
>>> what I said, but I don't see an inbound=outbound statement in the 
>>> license as stating "here are the conditions upon which my 
>>> contributions to the software are accepted," I understand it to be 
>>> "here is the license I am granting to you to use this contribution" 
>>> (which isn't one of your options).
>>>
>>> Pam
>>>
>>> Pamela S. Chestek
>>> Chestek Legal
>>> 4641 Post St.
>>> Unit 4316
>>> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
>>> +1 919-800-8033
>>> pamela at chesteklegal.com
>>> www.chesteklegal.com
>>>
>>> On 12/8/2025 4:25 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>>>> I'm not seeing why there is a difference between a document that 
>>>> says "here are the conditions upon which any contributions to the 
>>>> software are accepted" and a document that says "here are the 
>>>> conditions upon which the software is licensed, and here are also 
>>>> the conditions upon which any contributions to the software are 
>>>> accepted."
>>>>
>>>> If you're concern is manifestation of assent, the act of submitting 
>>>> a contribution and requesting it be accepted would be the 
>>>> manifestation.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/8/2025 4:06 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/25 3:43 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>>>>>> As to Josh's comment "No text contained within the license can 
>>>>>> enforce that my PR is under that license," I disagree. When I 
>>>>>> created my contribution I necessarily accepted the terms of the 
>>>>>> outbound license, or at least I am hard-pressed to think of a way 
>>>>>> that someone made a contribution that matters but would not have 
>>>>>> taken an action that requires acceptance of the license.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can think of lots of ways to make a meaningful contribution 
>>>>> without having either run or redistributed the software:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Someone contributing grammar corrections to the docs or website 
>>>>> without using the software
>>>>>
>>>>> - Someone offering to naturalize the documentation based on a 
>>>>> translation framework, which also doesn't require using the software
>>>>>
>>>>> - Someone building a code contribution based on a differently 
>>>>> licensed version of the same software (if, for example, it's 
>>>>> available under a proprietary license as well)
>>>>>
>>>>> - Someone submitting 3rd-party dependency version updates without 
>>>>> running the software (like, for example, DependaBot does, and 
>>>>> humans do this as well).
>>>>>
>>>>> - A graphics designer submitting a change to graphics or UI design 
>>>>> created entirely with design programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there's other situations I haven't thought of. Are most 
>>>>> contributions based on the contributor having first downloaded and 
>>>>> run the software under the license? Sure. But definitely not all 
>>>>> of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and 
>>>> not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official 
>>>> statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an 
>>>> opensource.org email address.
>>>>
>>>> License-discuss mailing list
>>>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not 
>>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements 
>>> by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org 
>>> email address.
>>>
>>> License-discuss mailing list
>>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org 
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not 
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements 
>> by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org 
>> email address.
>>
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org 
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org