ORD-2.2
An enterprise contributing back, under ORD 2.2
Large organisation with procurement, legal review, and an SBOM process. Sending a patch, an issue, or a defect report upstream. This resolves to the Canopy tier.
Tier
Owed
A quarterly Canopy Report. Section 5.1 imposes a royalty only when the Canopy Licensee makes Production Use.
Sections in play
1.8, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 8.2
Who and what
The situation being resolved.
Actor
An enterprise
Large organisation with procurement, legal review, and an SBOM process.
over 50M USD
Situation
Contributing back
Sending a patch, an issue, or a defect report upstream.
Rulings
3 questions resolved against the text.
Which tier applies?
Canopy. Large organisation with procurement, legal review, and an SBOM process. Section 5.2 reporting applies; the Section 5.1 royalty attaches when the Licensee makes Production Use and only to attributable revenue.
Sections 1.8, 3.1, 5.1
Is anything owed?
A quarterly Canopy Report. Section 5.1 imposes a royalty only when the Canopy Licensee makes Production Use.
Sections 5.1, 5.2
What must a contribution disclose?
That it is your own work, or is appropriately licensed and identified as such, or was produced with the assistance of an AI tool and which tool. Section 8.2 extends this to issues and defect reports, not only code, because the volume problem maintainers face is reports rather than patches.
Sections 8.2
Cautions
What this situation gets wrong most often.
Section 8.3 of ORD requires a withdrawal of consent to propagate to any derivative you have distributed. Whether that is operationally achievable at depth is a published open question.
Same actor
Other situations for this party.
Non-normative. Where this and the licence text disagree, the licence text applies.