Reconcile IP transfer requirement with commons/open-source ethos

[JohnRDOrazio]

Context

An audit of all repo documents against the CDCF bylaws and manifesto found that the IP transfer requirement in project-types.md may conflict with the manifesto's commons ethos.

Problem

project-types.md states:

Upon acceptance as an active (graduated) project, the intellectual property of a Foundation Project belongs to the CDCF itself.

The bylaws describe the CDCF's purpose as to "coordinate, develop, steward, and disseminate open-source software." The manifesto describes a "builder commons" and "communalizing open-source digital tools." Requiring IP transfer to the CDCF goes beyond stewardship of open-source code — open-source projects can be stewarded without IP ownership transfer (as Apache, Linux Foundation, and many others demonstrate through licensing rather than ownership).

This should be reconciled with the manifesto's commons language, which suggests shared stewardship rather than centralized IP control.

Suggested approach

Consider alternative models used by major open-source foundations:

• Apache model: Contributors grant a license; Apache doesn't own the IP
• Linux Foundation model: Projects retain their own IP; the foundation provides governance
• Eclipse model: Contributors sign a CLA granting broad rights without transferring ownership

The right model should balance the CDCF's need for stewardship authority with the manifesto's commons ethos and the practical reality of encouraging contributions.

Affected files

• project-governance/project-types.md

Dependencies

Should be implemented after #8 / PR #9 is merged. ✅ PR #9 merged 2026-04-19.

Identified during bylaws/manifesto alignment audit.