Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [open-regulatory-compliance] When is a contribution a contribution ?
On 27 Dec 2024, at 13:48, Maarten Aertsen <maarten@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri Dec 27, 2024 at 12:45 CET, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On 27 Dec 2024, at 11:37, Maarten Aertsen <maarten@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon Dec 23, 2024 at 13:20 CET, Dirk-Willem van Gulik via open-regulatory-compliance wrote:
Taking this - is this a good list of `tests' if something is a contribution to an open source steward (OSS) ?

I am trying to understand the problem space you are attempting to address.

So I would like to have a set of tests, or guidance, [..]

So, I tracked until this point, then you lost me when you started to describe the origin history of the CLA. Then the last sentence made it click, thanks for that clarification:

So I reallly would like a very easy (also for corporate lawyers & liability insurances of sole traders) to understand rule - if you contribute under a CLA - then you are essentially of the hook for the CRA for everything post that point.

I guess my contribution would be to bring up that whatever test or guidance text you design also take into account the world that does not use CLA's,

Agreed. 

but uses (implicit) inbound=outbound, 

Or explicit - i.e a a lot of the post 2008 licenses (taking the ASF newer/post 2.0 one as an example as I know that one best) -also- contain such clauses [1]. 

However we've found over the years that this rarely, if ever, seems to placate the corporate laywers. Hence the widespread use of the corporate and individual CLAs. 

or whatever other light(er) weight constructs people use. 

Right - and I think what I would like is for these lighter weight constructs to get a checklist from a CRA perspective. if it covers these 3 to 5 items - then you are, as a contributor, not in scope of the CRA. And perhaps we can get the Open Source Institute to put a nice 'logo' or other sigil on any license that thus protects the contributor.


Perhaps it's useful to help CLA-users figure out the CRA using terms/tests that they are already familiar with. In contrast, for those who are not in that group, let's make sure to not create the impression that they somehow need a CLA, or the tests contained therein to comply. And that's because I agree with your observation about friction :)

Grin :) -- I would say that there are many ways to conclude that CRA `I am a contributor' thing. The CLA is one. A similar one in the license may be two and so on. 

That said (and no speaking for myself - from my day job perspective) - I would not mind it too much if CLAs became more weadspread - as it makes it so much easier downstream to sort out if things like (c) and IP are actually in order.

Dw


Back to the top