
Cross-License Collaboratives – decentralizing contributor license agreements - detaro
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/10/05/XLC.html
======
gus_massa
> _Those special powers come with a catch: they can only be used on behalf of
> the project as a whole, supported by a vote of fellow contributors._

Who can vote? Anyone that has a commit? LOC?

What happens in case of a fork? Which subproject gets the additional rights?

~~~
kemitchell
> Who can vote?

Other contributors admitted by vote.

> What happens in case of a fork?

Nothing special. The collaborative continues to be able to license the
original project as a group. If the original project gave an irrevocable
public license, it continues to apply.

~~~
gus_massa
So it's almost like the foundations that are created around open source
projects, but without an official status. If they sell a version with a
difference license to a company, how do the make the bill? What about
donations or grants?

In case a nasty angry fork of the 45% of the contributors, does the other 55%
effectively retain all the right? Can they remove the rebel 45%? Can they just
add more and more phantom contributors to decrease the size of the rebel vote
part? Who verifies that all the voters are real humans and not just
sockpuppets / meatpuppets?

~~~
kemitchell
Providing a lightweight, democratic substitute for the common open source
foundation was definitely one of the goals.

> If they sell a version with a difference license to a company, how do the
> make the bill?

Under the current draft, the contributor that proposed selling the license
takes the payment. Then they distribute equal portions to other contributors:

[https://xlcollaborative.com/agreement/1.0.0-pre.3#distributi...](https://xlcollaborative.com/agreement/1.0.0-pre.3#distributing-
payments)

For the legal eagles out there, the effect is similar to accounting to joint
owners.

> What about donations or grants?

There are no rules about donations as such. But the terms don't do anything to
stop contributors accepting donations, either individually or through another
facility. I haven't checked it, and I can't stand behind this as legal advice,
but at least conceptually, I don't see any legal reason contributors to a
cross-license collaborative couldn't also sign up for OpenCollective, GitHub
Sponsors, Patreon, etc.

> In case a nasty angry fork of the 45% of the contributors, does the other
> 55% effectively retain all the right? Can they remove the rebel 45%?

The project may fork. The collaborative doesn't. Contributors remain
contributors. Voting works the same. But new contributions to the fork won't
be covered by the collaborative.

They are not strictly equivalent, but as a thought experiment, consider: What
happens to a foundation- or company-stewarded project when it forks?

> Can they just add more and more phantom contributors to decrease the size of
> the rebel vote part? Who verifies that all the voters are real humans and
> not just sockpuppets / meatpuppets?

The process for admitting new members, and the qualifications and requirements
for admission, are spelled out in the terms:

[https://xlcollaborative.com/agreement/1.0.0-pre.3#contributo...](https://xlcollaborative.com/agreement/1.0.0-pre.3#contributors)

Strongly encourage you to have a read through the terms. They've been prepared
to be as readable as possible _without_ legal training. I'd greatly appreciate
feedback on what's confusing, unclear, or legally worded. We should fix that.

