[openssl-dev] We're working on license changes

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

--On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:14 PM -0400 Brian Smith 
<brian at briansmith.org> wrote:

> It is natural for a lawyer to tell you to require lots of things to
> protect whatever entity is paying them. That's defense-in-depth type
> advice from them. However, lawyers do cost-benefit analysis based on the
> goals you give them. If you tell them that avoiding CLAs is important
> then they'll help you avoid CLAs, generally.

I'll second this -- At Zimbra, I went through this recently with our legal 
team, as we are working to make it much simpler for the community to 
contribute back.  Initially the legal team proposed a CLA.  I spent a 
significant amount of time explaining why this was problematic, and they 
eventually agreed that an IPR similar to the one I noted for OpenLDAP was 
sufficient for our case.  There of course could be reasons why a CLA would 
be necessary for the OpenSSL project, but nothing comes immediately to my 
mind as to why that'd be the case.  CLA's just generally seem to be the 
default starting position with legal teams, in my experience. ;)

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration