To signal potential open source contributors that there is no danger of being sued for their work. Too many vendors have used the fact or even just the accusation of reverse-engineering or other non-EULA-compliant behaviour to suppress OSS.
I don't see a connection to "outsource tool development to some other company".
If I commission some work from another company, this company doesn't receive, modify or extend my software under the standard EULA. They do so under our contract.
Comments
To signal potential open source contributors that there is no danger of being sued for their work. Too many vendors have used the fact or even just the accusation of reverse-engineering or other non-EULA-compliant behaviour to suppress OSS.
That's a valid reason. But not what I asked.
I don't see a connection to "outsource tool development to some other company".
If I commission some work from another company, this company doesn't receive, modify or extend my software under the standard EULA. They do so under our contract.
The idea was that some outside company had a say in what went into the EULA.