I'm not a lawyer, but that agreement was formulated by the lawyers of several national labs, universities, and corporations back at the very beginning of the project, and so that's what we have to use.
According to the lawyers, it is indeed compatible. I'll let them argue it :-) On Aug 29, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> writes: > >> Indeed, welcome! >> >> Just to make things smoother: are you planning to contribute your work >> back to the community? If so, we'll need a signed contributor >> agreement - see here: >> >> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/contribute/corporate.php > > This is an Apache-2.0 CLA, which has a patent indemnification clause. > Why is this used even though Open MPI is distributed under 3-clause BSD, > an incompatible license. (You can include BSD-3 software in an > Apache-2.0 distribution, but not vice-versa due to the patent > indemnification clause.) > > http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html > > > > FWIW, I think a DCO provides more accurate provenance and I agree with > Bradley Kuhn's arguments that CLAs raise the barrier for entry and are > unnecessary. > > http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/07/07/harmony-harmful.html
