Withdrawal of the licence: Some CLA supporters warn of the prospect that a contributor may one day attempt to revoke an earlier licence. As they are individual contributors without affiliation, it is not clear why an Apache-style CLA offers more reasonable protection against this result than using an open source license. And as with so many legal risks that are mentioned in discussions about open source law policy, this seems to be a phantom risk. Over the years, I have heard only a few alleged attempts to withdraw the licence, all of which were quickly resolved when the contributor resigned in the face of Community pressure. One of the reasons is the problem of bureaucracy. Normally, the development of open source is characterized by a fluid contribution that is made possible by a deepening development without further ceremony or legal process. This makes it relatively easy for new contributors to participate in a project, allowing for more efficient growth of contributing groups and stimulating upstream technical innovation. Frictionless Contribution is an important part of the advantage that open source development offers over proprietary alternatives. But the fluid contribution is denied by the CLAs. Having to sign an unusual legal agreement before accepting a contribution creates a bureaucratic obstacle that slows development and discourages participation.
These costs remain despite the increasing use of automation by projects based on the use of LA. The CTC may also include certain disclaimers from the contributor. For example, the CTC may indicate that the contributor is contributing on the basis of „As Is“ without any explicit or tacit guarantees regarding title, non-counterfeiting, cashibility and/or suitability for a specific use. The CTC may exempt explicit or unspoken safeguards that would require the contributor to provide ongoing technical assistance. A CLA may not be necessary if the open source project uses an original development certificate (DCO) instead. The DCO was created by the Linux Foundation as a concise explanation for a contributor, to confirm that they have created their contribution or that they otherwise have the right to pass it on to open source projects and to ensure that their contribution can be distributed in the project`s open source licenses. In a way, the DCO is like a lightweight CLA that might be more attractive to contributors who would otherwise refuse to sign a CTC with broader terms. If you`re running an open source project, you`ve probably selected an open source license that controls your project.
This provides an implied agreement for participants in your project, while a Contributor Licensing Agreement (CLA) makes these terms explicit and provides a record of those agreements. Many CLAs require the contribution to become the exclusive property of the project. As our product is made up of many small parts, I could easily see where a developer would hesitate. B to provide a particular monitoring code, for example, if he could not use it elsewhere. This agreement allows the author to preserve copyright and assign copyright to the project. In this document, the contributor gave the Canonical the copyright and, at the same time Canonical, the contributor „a global, non-exclusive, free and permanent right to use, modify, communicate and make available to the public the contributions awarded (including without restriction on the Internet) and to distribute the contributions awarded, in an original or modified manner, as they wish.“   However, it is more common for a CLA to have a copyright license that allows the author of the contribution to retain ownership of the copyright, which may be more desirable from the contributor`s point of view. The copyright license in the CLA cannot be more restrictive than the open source license used to distribute the project code.