[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Not to discount your objections, but tooling may help.  Take a look at https://cla-assistant.io/; there may be other, similar services for your needs (that is the first one that I found, I have no idea if it's good or not, I've never used them, but they may help you).

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Elmar Stellnberger
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:46 PM
> To: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>; License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)
> 
> A contributor license agreement will work for large industry scale applications with many programmers. It will not work for a private
> project of mine because people would either ignore any contributor license agreement in my name or even rather wildly develop different
> forks without a mainline/upstream project.
> 
> On 10/2/18 5:33 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > That's why you use a contributor license agreement. If you only accept
> > contributions from people who have signed the agreement, you know you
> > have the right to relicense or reassign the copyright. And since the
> > contributor has signed the agreement, not simply accepted a tear-open
> > license, you have real evidence of their consent which protects you
> > from lawsuits.
> >
> > Many Open Source projects use a CLA, even when they don't plan to make
> > any commercial product at all. It provides some additional confidence
> > to the project that the contribution was made with the authority of
> > the copyright holder (who is often the author's employer rather than
> > the author), etc.
> >
> >      Thanks
> >
> >      Bruce
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:17 AM Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb at elstel.org
> > <Caution-mailto:estellnb at elstel.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     The problem about dual licensing is that I can not be sure whether I
> >     may
> >     use contributions made to the open source branch of the project. I
> >     would
> >     have to reprogram every patch sent to the open source branch in
> >     order to
> >     assimilate it in the proprietary branch. - and then there are
> >     patches so
> >     tiny that you can not reprogram them. That is a problem although tiny
> >     patches where there is no other way to achieve the same functionality
> >     should not fall under copyright law.
> >
> >     On 10/1/18 11:30 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> >      > Dual-licensing is a well-developed strategy for mixing pure Open
> >     Source
> >      > licensing with paid licensing producing income, with both sides
> >      > producing benefit for the other. It sounds like some of the people
> >      > commenting haven't learned about it. It is legally much better
> >      > structured than the submitted license, in part because of the use
> >     of a
> >      > contributor license agreement. There is also the potential for a
> >      > covenant back to the developer preventing the product from being
> >     taken
> >      > entirely private.
> >      >
> >      >      Thanks
> >      >
> >      >      Bruce
> >      >
> >      > _______________________________________________
> >      > License-review mailing list
> >      > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> >     <Caution-mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
> >      >
> >     Caution-http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >      >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering Standards committee chair,
> > license review committee member, co-founder, Open Source Initiative
> > President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom
> > Initiative.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> Caution-http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org