At Canonical, we manage many open source projects and we must have agreements with everyone involved. This is the easiest way for you to give us permission to use your messages. In fact, give us a license, but you still own the copyright – so you retain the right to modify your code and use it in other projects. CLAs can be used to enable suppliers to find a simple legal solution in the event of a copyright dispute[1] or to re-elect products to which third parties have received contributions. [2] CLAs are particularly important for open source enterprise projects licensed under Copyleft, as without CLA, the contribution would also limit the Guardian. So you`ve decided that using a contributor license agreement is the right path for your business or project. You probably have questions about what it should contain. First, it should contain a clear definition of contribution. Again, the use of the previous Carrie Fisher reference, the rewriting of a script to inject more humor or concretize a particular character, is far from rewriting a script from the bottom up, or even proceeding to a massive revision of the original material. In addition, it is necessary to specify who owns the relevant patents (current and future) and copyrights. Luckily, if you`re worried about missing important points, here you can find a template for an in-depth contributor license agreement.

The CLA may also contain other provisions that may be beneficial in the long run for the open source project, for example.B. the question of who is responsible for enforcing the open source license in the event of infringement of copyright and any other alternative legislation or regulation that should apply. 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. In addition, some contributors may be deterred from accepting the terms of a CLA if they do not understand the legality or consequences of signing the agreement (online or offline) or any other consent to its terms. In the absence of legal representation, some contributors may find the CTC`s terms and conditions compulsive or unfair. Contributors may also be reluctant to accept a CLA or allow their employees to accept a CLA before obtaining permission from their lawyer. Other contributors may prefer to remain anonymous, which might not be possible if a project requires a CLA.

. . .