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

[Matija Šuklje]

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 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FLA-2.1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55677 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260917/0ab75693/attachment-0001.pdf>