Facebook Contributor License Agreement

As noted above, a CLA is essentially a legal contract that can be customized for a specific open source project. While the CLA may set certain rights and obligations for a contributor based on their contribution to an open source project, it may also include restrictions on how the project itself can license and distribute the contribution. Canonical launches the Harmony project.“ Support organizations that use contribution agreements by providing standardized variable templates with clear and concise explanations. [37] There are several ways to implement a CBA. Some projects may opt for a short and simple CLA agreement, while others opt for a more detailed legal instrument. In addition, some projects may require separate CPAs for individual and corporate contributions. While CLA can take many different forms, here are some provisions that are often included. An open source project involves a community of software developers who agree to develop a common software code base and make it available for free, but are subject to certain licensing requirements. The resulting software is usually reviewed by several contributors to the open source project and can be updated and improved based on their contributions. Open source software is widely used in many popular software products, including Mozilla Firefox, WordPress, GNU/Linux, Android mobile devices, Open Java Development Kit (OpenJDK), and even commercial products like Apple`s OS X. By contributing to React, you agree that your Contributions are licensed under MIT. Projects that require contributors to sign this agreement include:[35] CLA can be used to allow providers to easily find a legal solution in the event of copyright disputes[1] or licenses for products for which contributions have been received from third parties. [2] CLA are particularly important for copyleft licensed enterprise open source projects, as without CLA, the contribution would also restrict the Guardian.

All work on React is done directly on GitHub. Core team members and external contributors send pull requests that go through the same review process. However, it is optional and each contributor cannot assign their copyright to KDE e.V. We require all contributors to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) before they can provide content for any of our projects. Some CLA also require the contributor to grant a patent license that prevents the author of a contribution to the open source project from later claiming patent infringement on the basis of the contribution. Google`s individual CLA is an example of a contribution agreement with such a patent license. A CLA may also not be required if the open source project uses a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) instead. The DCO was created by the Linux Foundation as a concise statement to a contributor to confirm that they have created their contribution or that they are otherwise authorized to submit it to the open source project, and agrees that their contribution may be distributed under the project`s open source licenses. In a sense, the DCO is like a lightweight CLA that might be more appealing to contributors who would otherwise refuse to sign a CLA with broader terms.

A Contributor License Agreement (CLA) defines the terms in which intellectual property has been brought to a company/project, usually software under an open source license. In addition, a CLA generally requires the Contributor to make certain representations and warranties, which may include one or more of the following options: License withdrawal: Some proponents of the CLA warn of the prospect that a Contributor may one day attempt to revoke a previous license. Given that these are individual contributors without affiliation, it`s not clear why an Apache-style CLA offers more adequate protection against this outcome than using an open source license. And as with so many of the legal risks mentioned in discussions about open source legal policy, this seems like a phantom risk. Over the years, I have heard few alleged attempts to revoke the license, 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. Usually, the development of open source is characterized by a fluid contribution, made possible by in-depth development without any 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 technical innovation upstream. Frictionless contribution is an important part of the advantage that open source development offers over proprietary alternatives. But the liquid contribution is refused by the CLA. The need to sign an unusual legal agreement before a contribution is accepted creates a bureaucratic obstacle that slows down development and prevents participation. In this document, the contributor transferred the copyright to Canonical and, at the same time, Canonical gave the contributor „a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free and perpetual right to use, copy, modify, communicate and make available to the public the contributions transferred at will (including, but not limited to, Internet) and, in any event, to distribute them in an original or modified form“.

[35] [36] The CLA may also contain other provisions that may be beneficial in the long run for the open source project, e.B. who is responsible for enforcing the open source license in the event of copyright infringement and what alternative dispute resolution procedures or applicable law should apply. The CLA could also clarify whether it applies to contributions to specific software in an open source project, to the entire open source code base, or to multiple projects managed by the same entity. In addition, the CLA may contain provisions that would allow the open source project to modify open source licenses over time without having to obtain the approval of each of its contributors before making the change. The CLA could also allow the open source project to distribute the message simultaneously under separate licenses such as open source and proprietary licenses, depending on whether the code is used commercially or not. Oracle`s MySQL is an example of an open source project with such a dual-license approach. Another advantage of using a CLA is that it provides a formal mechanism for the open source project to track its contributors and contributions. Each contributor can provide credentials in the LAC that allow the project supervisor to keep track of who the main contributors to the project are, where they are employed, and other statistical information about the project`s contributions.

As explained below, open source projects need to weigh the pros and cons of requiring their individual contributors to sign a CLA. Here we summarize some of the factors to consider when deciding whether a CLA is suitable for an open source project. Typically, a CLA is used to grant the open source project sufficient rights to allow it to publish a software contribution under the project`s open source licenses. In a simple case, the CLA may require any contributor to transfer the copyright of the contribution to the open source project. The assignment may be accompanied by a non-exclusive license that will be returned to the contributor, a „retrocession license“ that gives the original author permission to copy, modify or distribute the contribution and its derivative works under the retrocession license. The Free Software Foundation, for example, uses this approach for some of its GNU projects, allowing a single maintainer to own and enforce copyright in the project`s software. The purpose of a CLA is to ensure that the custodian of the results of a project has the necessary ownership or grant of rights to all contributions so that they can be distributed under the chosen license. In some cases, this means that the contributor assigns the copyright of all contributions to the project owner. in other cases, they grant an irrevocable license that allows the project manager to use the contribution.

CCLA also plays a role in raising awareness of IPR issues within a project. [3] This constitutes an implied agreement for participants in your project, while a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) makes these terms explicit and includes a record of these agreements. Many CLA require that the contribution become the exclusive property of the project. Since our product consists of many small parts, I could easily see where a developer would hesitate. B to provide a specific monitoring code, for example. B if he could not use it elsewhere. This agreement allows the author to preserve the copyright and assign the copyright in the project. In this document, the Contributor has given Canonical the copyright and at the same time Canonical has given the Contributor „a global, non-exclusive, free and permanent right to use, modify, communicate and make available to the public (even without limitation on the Internet) the Contributions granted and to distribute the Contributions awarded in an original or modified manner as it wishes“. [35] [36] However, it is more common for a CLA to have a copyright license that allows the author of the contribution to retain the copyright, which may be more desirable from a contribution perspective. .

Comments are closed.