John Cowan wrote: > Open source licenses grant things to whomever has the source code;....
Do you mean "grant things to whomever accepts the terms and conditions of the license"? /Larry -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:00 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FAQ entry on CLAs Engel Nyst scripsit: > There is probably no way to make a statement like this without taking > a position, and the above does that. It's saying that "inbound agreements" > are something else than open licenses, fulfill an unspecified need > that open licenses don't. That open licenses are meant to be > "outbound" (to whom?). That alone contributes to confusion about open source licensing. While I agree with what you are saying (there is no reason why any open source license can't be used as a contributor agreement, and some projects actually work that way), there is a fundamental difference between the FSF's CLA and the GPL, namely that the CLA is not a *public* license. Open source licenses grant things to whomever has the source code; a CLA normally grants things (anything up to full copyright ownership) only to the party they are addressed to. We could say that implicit requirement 0 of the OSD is that the object of discussion is a public software license. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org You're a brave man! Go and break through the lines, and remember while you're out there risking life and limb through shot and shell, we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are! --Rufus T. Firefly _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
