licensing and CLA

Hi all,

Here are some brief and jumbled thoughts I wanted to share, after the
initial (and mostly negative) responses to the idea of dual-licensing
and CLAs.  If the rest are silent supporters, that's great, but I'd love
to actually hear you help me make the case - or simply voice your support.

For those of you waiting for development to happen, that's at the top of
my list and we will have something soon.  Graham and I have been making
progress on gathering the full requirements for Repoteus, but this
message popped out in between my hacking and IRC chats.

* Ideally, I wish all the software could be free software.  Even if such
becomes the reality, the cost of developing that software will never be
free, and development organizations will always need to derive revenue
somehow.

* A non-profit can be run like a business, just the revenues go
exclusively to further the cause, not help line shareholders pockets.
This foundation will be driven like a business; its business plan will
be continually update with all of the traditional aspects used to drive
an organization forward.


* Any relicensing would take place in the future, could be required to
be voted upon by the community of members.  I do not want the foundation
to be able to arbitrarily relicense the technology I help develop for it
any more than I expect others would want that to happen.

* I also own a embedded Linux consultancy.  I want to be able to say
that non-GPL is an option - and that is an option for those works that I
create by myself from scratch and without outside contributions.

* For Zynot technology, I would happily arrange to pay a per-unit
royalty (or just regular wads of cash) if a client insisted for non-GPL
terms.  This is not an unreasonable scenario for an embedded OS vendor,
though one I would fight against (and would turn down if enough pure
open source contracts were available).

* Such terms would be approved by the membership when that day comes.
Such would be above and beyond licensing of our yet to be developed
brand name and image.

* While the reality of business is that other licenses are viable (even
those labeled as "closed"), the foundation will only fund the
development of open source software.  Non-GPL is only a licensing option
that gives us revenue, support would obviously be only under the GPL.


* The ability to relicense under non-GPL terms is only one reason for
using a CLA; it also provides a means for accountability with regard to
IP disputes, either with closed use of GPL or with contributions with
submarine patents.

* I do not believe that having a free-for-all copyright scheme (which is
what you have without CLAs) is either prudent or acceptable for a
business to operate.  Such scattered control prevents the code from ever
being re-used in non-GPL contexts.

* The recent SCO lawsuit serves as a sign that we ally ourselves though
such community organizations such as Zynot, providing united
accountability of our actions.  The CLA serves as this foundation for
better protecting the community.

* There has been an annoying trend of certain embedded device vendors
not immediately providing source code for products that obviously
contain GPL source code.  While many cases get resolved amicably, the
foundation should be empowered to protect that works derived from Zynot
remain open.

* Hypothetically speaking: If re-licensing were taken out of
consideration (i.e. Zynot is GPL-only), would I still want CLAs?
Absolutely, as the language goes beyond the realm of licensing; however,
the title becomes conspicuously inappropriate.


* I've heard rumors that rewording of the CLA might be happening soon,
from which Zynot could benefit.  I am not in a hurry to see these
signed, as the terms do specify all past contributions.

* I am trying to convey what I perceive as a real need for the
organization, bearing in mind that I personally feel this is the right
thing to do for open source in the long term.

I hope these spark more pointed lines of conversation that can help us
move these topics along to some sort of conclusion.

Cheers,

Zach