@@ -8,26 +8,38 @@ Obviously, code that's not under a license that is both
[approved by FSF as a Free Software license](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses)
is completely useless to us.
<a id="gpl-compatible"></a>
It would also be quite preferable if the code were under a
[a license that FSF has determined is GPL-compatible](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses),
so that code from GPL'd projects can be easily shared and GPL'd applications
can be built on top of anything we build. Code not under a GPL-compatible
license would face a high burden (i.e., the code would really have to be
absolutely wonderful in all other respects) to dictate such a license choice.
<a id="no-cla-for-profit"></a>
If the project has a CLA other than inbound=outbound, or has copyright
assignment, the beneficiary has to be a 501(c)(3) non-profit, as non-profit
contributors may not be legally permitted to give away code assets to a
for-profit entity or an entity with a different tax status.
Even for 501(c)(3)'s requesting a CLA or copyright assignment, there would
need to be a confirmation that the missions of the orgs were sufficiently
aligned.
Given that the project is going to solicit support and contributions from
501(c)(3)'s, this issue is particularly important.
## No Legal Barriers
## Developer Documentation
<a id="dev-docs"></a>
The right choice has to have an accessible codebase. Since no accounting
package yet deals with the issues specific to non-profit organizations, this
project will have to focus on bringing developers *to* the new project.
<a id="dev-welcoming"></a>
As such, the codebase needs to be accessible. Communication with the
core developers should be possible and interactive. The project should
be willing to accept new contributors who might want to make substantial
changes to the codebase.