CAA exclusivity. CLA inbound, Apache outbound.
CAA exclusivity. CLA inbound, Apache outbound.
Posted Aug 11, 2011 13:59 UTC (Thu) by sladen (guest, #27402)In reply to: CLAs vs CAAs by rfontana
Parent article: Desktop Summit: Copyright assignments
- CLAs and CAAs could be considered related for the mere act of enabling distribution to happen, but I believe that there is one significant functional difference: A copyright assignment agreement is exclusive (can only be given to one entity), where-as a copyright licence agreement can be signed and the contribution offered to many projects in parallel.
- You last point raises an interesting question: Given the (above) stated similarity of most CLAs to the Apache CLA—are you comfortable with an organisation that requests a CLA inbound, and then distributes those contributions outbound under the Apache Licence?
Posted Aug 11, 2011 14:07 UTC (Thu)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Posted Aug 11, 2011 16:19 UTC (Thu)
by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
[Link]
On your question: I find that unobjectionable if the original Apache CLA is used, or some equivalent variant or counterpart, though I consider the CLA an unnecessary and counterproductive layer of complexity in such a case. Especially apparent if you read it very closely, the Apache CLA doesn't really give you anything you wouldn't already have if you just used the Apache License inbound (note btw the Apache License 2.0 has an ingenious built-in inbound==outbound contributor agreement, largely overlooked). Other CLAs, including modifications of the Apache CLA, could be problematic for various reasons.
CAA exclusivity. CLA inbound, Apache outbound.
CAA exclusivity. CLA inbound, Apache outbound.