Contributions to Projects

Some open source projects seek copyright assignment from their contributors. This serves two purposes:

1. A project that owns copyrights has standing to enforce those copyrights in court without needing the contributor 's participation or approval.

2. The project, and not the contributor, now has the right to make licensing decisions about the software.

Many authors of software refuse to assign their copyrights. The experience of musicians , photographers, writers, and artists in past generations warns us not to lightly give away that which we create. And the experiences of literally thousands of open source projects give us reason to believe that open source projects can thrive quite nicely with mere licenses from contributors rather than copyright assignments.

Contributors can license their contributions to projects, knowing and intending that the projects will combine contributions from many people, modify them in some coherent way, and then distribute a resulting derivative or collective work to the public. The terms of the contributor's license determine what the project can do with the software.

Software licensed to a project under an academic license can generally be used for any purpose whatsoever. It can be treated as a contribution to any open source project. For example, if software were blood, contributors under at least some academic licenses would be universal donors.

Through reciprocity, the GPL creates a commons of software similarly licensed under the GPL. That software can be combined and modified under the terms of the GPL by anyone and everyone, and so the license doesn't classify people as contributors or anything else. The GPL refers to all licensees as "you." Again, if software were blood, GPL-licensed software would all be of one blood type.

All GPL-licensed software is available for reuse in all projects using the GPL license. No separate contributor agreement is needed. However, some open source licenses deal more directly with the special characteristics of contributors. For example, the MPL distinguishes an "Initial Developer Grant" (MPL section 2.1) and a "Contributor Grant" (MPL section 2.2). These two sections of the license are almost identical, except that the Initial Developer contributes the Original Code and the Contributor contributes Modifications. Section 3.1 of the MPL makes the license reciprocal for Contributors.

Later in the license, the MPL, which was written by the Initial Developer and thus reflects that company's interests, sets more stringent conditions for Contributors. For example, the latter accept obligations regarding Intellectual Property Matters that don't necessarily apply to the Initial Developer (MPL section 3.4). The MPL also allows the Initial Developer ”but not the Contributor ”to designate alternative licenses under which portions of the Covered Code can be distributed. (MPL section 13 and Exhibit A.)

The CPL is more balanced than the MPL. The person or company who starts the software development process is merely the "initial Contributor" and everyone later is a " subsequent Contributor." The license grant extends to Recipient, who is defined as "anyone who receives the Program under this Agreement, including all Contributors." (CPL section 1.) Under the CPL, Contributors are simply those who distribute the Program. (CPL section 1.)

If a project distributes its software under the CPL, it can accept contributions licensed under the CPL. No separate contributor agreement is needed.

The OSL/AFL licenses apply the GPL's approach to contributor licenses ”there simply are no distinctions drawn among types of licensors or licensees and no need for a separate contributor agreement. The Licensor is the owner of an Original Work, and the licensee is You. If software were blood, contributors under the AFL would be universal donors, and OSL-licensed software (because of its reciprocity provision) would all be of one blood type.