Re: [gentoo-project] Poll: Would you sign a Contributer License Agreement?

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:

> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:45 PM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
>> I have a nit question:
>> Can we please call the agreement "FLA" instead of "CLA", since it
>> is derived from FSFE's FLA-2.0, and is still a FLA at it's heart,
>> rather than a USian-centric CLA?

> As a USian, I second the motion.  I think the FLA is a copyleft
> approach to CLA-like documents and I'd prefer that anybody who is
> adverse to CLAs in general take a moment to understand what the FLA
> does before rushing to judgment.

We have been asked by the FSFE not to call it FLA if we modify it.
And although I don't like this proliferation of versions, neither for
the DCO nor for the FLA, we don't have a choice here:

FLA-2.0 [1] says in section 4 (my emphasis):

| We agree to (sub)license the Contribution or any Materials
| containing, based on or derived from your Contribution under the
| terms of any licenses the Free Software Foundation classifies as
| free licenses *and* which are approved by the Open Source Initiative
| as Open Source licenses.

So it requires that we distribute any contribution only under a
license approved by both the FSF and the OSI. However, the OSI's list
of approved licenses [2] doesn't include any of the Creative Commons
licenses, which would prevent us from using CC-BY-SA-3.0 for our
documentation.

Therefore the "and" is changed to an "or", which is also the most
significant change in the Gentoo version. The other two changes are
that we have removed the reference to an "entity version" which
doesn't exist, and that we call our product simply "Gentoo Linux"
instead of "Gentoo Foundation's Gentoo Linux" (the latter being the
term that results from the FSFE's FLA generator).

Ulrich

[1] https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/cla/fla-2.0.pdf
[2] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical