licensing with friends, improved and improving
The Community Corrosive Effects of CLAs | James Bottomley's random Pages
As one of the kernel DCO advocates, I’ve written many times about using the DCO instead of a CLA for copyright and patent contributions under open source licences. In spite of my obvious biases, I’ll try to give a factual overview of the cases for the DCO and CLA system. First, it should be noted that both the DCO and any CLA are types of Contribution Agreements (a set of terms by which contributors are agreeing to be bound). It should also be acknowledged that the DCO is a far more recent invention than CLAs. The DCO was first pioneered by the Linux kernel in 2004 (having been designed by Diane Peters, then of OSDL) and was subsequently adopted by a broad range of open source projects. However, in legal terms, the DCO is much less well understood than a standard CLA type agreement between the contributor and some entity, which is largely the reason you find a number of lawyers still advocating for the use of CLAs in various open source projects: because they’d like to stick with something that has more miles on it, or because they’re invested in the older model of community, largely pioneered by Apache. The biggest problem today is that the operation of most CLAs is asymmetrical: they take from the contributor more rights than the open source code actually needs, so lets begin with a summary of each type of Contribution Agreement.
Some argue that dual-licensing in commercial open source indicates a lack of ability to provide superior service
This is obviously wrong. The use of dual licensing and the ability to provide superior service for open source are unrelated forms of competitive advantage, and without further circumstances, a bus…
The CRA is not about open source
The CRA created an open-source steward role, then left maintenance unfunded.
Katerina Marchán (@zkat@toot.cat)
Open source maintainers of major projects (hi) are not ready to accept and talk about how the cultural insistence on permissive licensing is just straight up labor exploitation taking advantage of our addiction to popularity (also hi). We’re doing this to ourselves too, you know.
Mobile Open Source: My Honest Dual Licensing
Excellent post, Fabrizio. Thanks for "just being honest" about dual licensing. I agree with you whole-heartedly.As for Alfresco, our old model was working fine. In some ways, perhaps better. But it never felt right for us. (Some of this was my innate insecurity born of competing with Red Hat's open source message while at mixed-source Novell. I lost there, and didn't like the way we lost. I hated the message I had to say there.) So we went 100% MPL, and the results have been excellent - sales are up, downloads are up, and (most importantly) happiness is up. We really like the change, and everyone in the company and our community is happier.Is it an infallible model? No. But I agree with you - the better we segment our customers, the better our sales/etc. will be.Matt
Solving the Commercial Open Source Licensing Dilemma With Triple-Licensing
As you may have noticed, the move away from approved open source licenses to commercial almost-like-open-source licenses by single-vendor-owned open source projects has created a lot of bad press f…
XLC Building Blocks
essential concepts and vocabulary for cross-license collaboratives
Why I used to prefer permissive licenses and now favor copyleft
Toward Copyleft Equality for All
I would not have imagined even two years ago that expansion of copyleft would become such an issue of interest in software freedom licensing. Historically and for good reason, addition of new forms of copyleft clauses has moved at a steady pace. The early 2000s brought network services clauses (such as that in the Affero GPL), which hinged primarily on requiring provision of source to network-remote users. Affero GPL implemented this via copyright-controlled permission of modification. These licenses began as experiments, and were not approved by some license certification authorities until many years later.
