Subject: RE: Contributor License Agreements
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:11 -0700

The Academic Free License (AFL 3.0) can serve as a contributor agreement,
allowing you to re-release the software under a different license if
necessary. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Alspaugh [mailto:compulinkltd@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:55 AM
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: Contributor License Agreements
> 
> My company is considering releasing a software library under an
> open-source license.  We are contemplating requiring contributors to
> return a signed Contributor License Agreement similar to the one used by
> Sun[1], Apache[2], and many others.
> 
> The advantages we see with CLAs are to preserve the option of
> re-releasing under a different license, and to strengthen our ability to
> defend license violations if necessary.  The disadvantages we see are
> the added administrative burden of maintaining them, and reluctance on
> the part of contributors to sign them.
> 
> When are CLAs advisable for open source projects? Are there other CLA
> templates we should consider?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Bruce Alspaugh, CTO
> CompuLink, Ltd.
> 409 Vandiver Drive #4-200
> Columbia, MO 65202-2213
> 
> [1] http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/ca.html
> [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/