Bug 650552 – Fiduciary Licence Agreement (FLA) draft

• Product: Gentoo Foundation
• Status: RESOLVED UPSTREAM

[Description Ulrich Müller 2018-03-15 10:59:22 UTC]

Opening a bug, so we can properly trace this.

There is a generator for the FSFE's FLA-2.0 at http://contributoragreements.org/ca-cla-chooser/ where we need to fill in the following fields. I have added my suggestions, so we have something to start with.

1. General
   
   Entity: "Gentoo Foundation"
   Project Name: "Gentoo Linux"
   Project Website: "https://www.gentoo.org/"
   Project Email: (trustees@g.o, or a new e-mail address for this purpose?)
   Contributor Signing Process Website: (to be done)
   Which jurisdiction should be mentioned in the agreement?
      "New Mexico, U.S.A."

2. Copyright

   Option 1 - The contribution(s) can be licensed under the terms of any
   licenses the Free Software Foundation classifies as Free Software
   Licenses and which are approved by the Open Source Initiative as Open
   Source licenses.
   Option 2 - The contribution(s) should only be licensed under the terms
   of the following license or licenses (including any right to adopt any 
   future version of a license if permitted):
   Option 3 - The contribution(s) should only be licensed in accordance
   with your licensing policy, which complies with the Free Software and
   Open Source Licenses approved by FSFE and OSI. It is available at:

   (Not entirely sure about this one. We could go with option 3 and point
   to "Licensing of Gentoo Projects" in the copyright policy.)

3. Patents

   (Nothing to fill there)

4. Review

   (Some things may need to be polished, e.g., "Gentoo Foundation's Gentoo
   Linux" sounds awkward.)

Please comment.

[Comment 1 Richard Freeman 2018-03-15 14:32:39 UTC]

This is basically the approach I was going to take.

I will note that on page 1 you did choose the option "FLA recommended by FSFE" and not "Create Custom CLA."  That is the option I recommend but I wanted to note that explicitly.  If you choose the other one you get additional options on the following pages (including on the patent page).  

For copyright I'd suggest #1 as it is more flexible and gives us more freedom to modify our internal policy without worrying about how it interacts with past FLAs.  #1 is already consistent with our social contract (IMO).

[Comment 2 Richard Freeman 2018-03-15 14:37:01 UTC]

I'm not sure if we want to open yet another bug under this one for this, but this text needs to be changed:

> If You are an employee and have created the Contribution as part of your employment, You need to have Your employer approve this Agreement or sign the Entity version of this document.

There is no "Entity version of this document".  I would just end the sentence after "Agreement."  Though, I wonder if there are parts of this agreement that might not make sense if signed by an organization, like the definition of "You" that contains the word "individual."

[Comment 3 Ulrich Müller 2018-07-03 09:30:57 UTC]

The FLA has been dropped from the copyright policy GLEP, therefore removing the blocker on bug 653118. Resolving as UPSTREAM, because we may reiterate once there is an FLA-2.1.

For reference, the latest draft version (based on FLA-2.0) is in the "fla" branch of my developer repository:
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/dev/ulm.git/log/?h=fla