In addition, a CLA generally requires the contributor to take out certain insurances and guarantees that may include one or more of the following information: when the contributor sends the form by e-mail to the FSF, the FSF sends an electronic copy (normally PDF) of the task. This or whatever answer is required must be made within five working days of the first question. If the FSF does not respond after this period, please send a reminder. If there is still no response after another week, please write to firstname.lastname@example.org. Another potential disadvantage is the administrative burden required to catalog and maintain a database of PDOs obtained for each contribution in an open source project. For projects with a large number of contributions and/or contributors, this can be a non-trivial task. In addition, it can be difficult to control when contributions were received without an appropriate CTC and how to manage those submissions. A CLA can offer several advantages for an open source project with multiple contributors. By explicitly describing the rights and obligations of the contributors, the open source project and/or the controller, the CLA can protect any participant in the project from disputes relating to the licensing or ownership of software contributions. In the case of projects involving employees of cooperating companies, the CLA can also give the company`s employers the certainty that certain legal protection measures exist to reduce the possibility of intellectual property disputes based on their employees` contributions to the project. This means that the Foundation can bring an action in court (e.g.B.
for damages) against a person who has violated OpenFOAM, with the exception of seeking an injunction, without including the contributor as a plaintiff in the appeal or obtaining permission from the court. This may be the last thing a contributor wants. The Foundation wants to fulfill the mission of extending the benefits of OpenFOAM to the whole world and protecting the interests of all those who have contributed to it, without having to drag them into the essentials of the legal proceedings, nor by seeking the authorization of the court, which, at best, can increase the costs of the procedure and, in the worst case, not be granted. Leave the Foundation high and dry without remedy. You`ll need one if you want to double up your open source project under another license. Z.B a commercial license. The agreement gives you full control of the coded code, so you won`t need the contributor`s permission afterwards if you want to sell a close-source commercial license for your open source project. 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 if they agree with their terms. In.
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 may not be possible if a project requires a CLA. Therefore, potential contributors may choose not to bring useful software inputs to the open source project due to fear, misunderstandings, or inconveniences associated with signing the CLA. Q. Can we translate the FPCA into other languages? One. Yes, although only the English text is binding for the purposes of the agreement. Not all translations that are made are “legal translations” and exist only to support non-English speaking contributors. All Fedora contributors must approve the English text. Since you do not own the code of other contributors, you cannot contest the license under which the code contributed to you. .