CLA issue.

ExistingProjects/EvaluationTemplate.mdwn

@@ -67,4 +67,5 @@ does, so I think it's tough to do it as a list of questions.
 
 ### Evaluation of the [[Community Health|UseCases/CommunityHealth]]
 - Is the [[license both determined as Free Software by FSF and OSI-approved|USeCases/CommunityHealth#license-approved]]?
-- Is the [[license GPL-compatible||USeCases/CommunityHealth#gpl-compatible]]?
+- Is the [[license GPL-compatible||UseCases/CommunityHealth#gpl-compatible]]?
+- Does the project [[require assignment of copyright or a CLA to get code upstreamed|UseCases/CommunityHealth#no-cla-for-profit]]?

UseCases/CommunityHealth.mdwn

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Health of the Development Community
 
-## Good License Choice
+## Good License and Legal Requirements Choices
 
 <a id="license-approved"></a>
 Obviously, code that's not under a license that is both
@@ -16,3 +16,18 @@ 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
+