|| Author: Duncan Riley|

Corporate Contributor License Agreement

The CLA may also contain certain exclusions of responsibility of the contributors. For example, the CLA may indicate that the contributor provides the contribution “as intended”, without explicit or implied warranties with respect to title, non-infringement, market interoperability and/or fitness for a particular purpose. The CLA may refuse any express or implied warranty that would oblige the contributor to provide ongoing technical assistance to the contribution. TL;DR: Contributing licensing agreements (a “nice to have” for many open source projects supported by many companies) create a non-contributory development experience, impose a heavy administrative burden, blame the legal fault on the party least able to defend themselves and are useless in view of modern development tools. The CLA could also determine whether it applies only to contributions to certain 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 permission from each of its contributors before the change is available. The CLA could also allow the open source project to distribute the contribution at the same time between separate licenses such as open source and proprietary licenses, depending on whether the code is used commercially. Oracle`s MySQL is an example of an open source project with such a dual-licensing approach. Another benefit of using a CLA is that it offers a formal mechanism for the open source project to track its contributors and contributions.

. . .

Comments are closed