Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t sign a CLA

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#31

Post by Legogris »

syrrim wrote: post #19
Legogris wrote: post #4

It's a great point to be aware of, but the title and the tone implies that you as a contributor should be a FOSS maximalist. As they say, not all open source is FOSS. And some people are OK with that. Let them contribute, as long as they are aware of the implications. When I discover bugs in open-source projects during my day job (which is on a closed-source project), I will be much happier having those fixes merged…

>not all open source is FOSS >This is not the case of all open source licenses. false. open source is literally just a friendlier name and otherwise rebranding of free software. all open source is free software and all free software is open source. if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS. FOSS refers to that software which guarantees your right to change it, so if you are making chan…

> false. open source is literally just a friendlier name and otherwise rebranding of free software.

This is not how anyone I have ever talked to thinks about it. You are probably confusing Free Software[0] with open source software[1]. If you still hold your point we are arguing semantics and stating that your interpretation (a minority interpretation) is right and that most of the software industry and open source community is wrong.

> if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS

Not necessarily.

> note further the game theoretic implications: if a minority of projects use CLAs, it is possible to avoid contributing to such projects. If people are willing to contribute to such projects, then their number might expand. Those interested in the continuation of FOSS, which should be anyone, especially those interested in software development, should therefore be interested in not signing CLAs.

You're completely right. Important factor to be aware of as a contributor for sure.

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://opensource.org/osd

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#32

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

hyperpape wrote: post #17

An interesting contrast among FOSS maximalists is that the FSF requires a CLA for a subset of its projects: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

I think the FSF gets a pass here, given that the GPL has explicit protections against the negative behaviors warned about in the article.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#33

Post by microcolonel »

Legogris wrote: post #4

It's a great point to be aware of, but the title and the tone implies that you as a contributor should be a FOSS maximalist. As they say, not all open source is FOSS. And some people are OK with that. Let them contribute, as long as they are aware of the implications. When I discover bugs in open-source projects during my day job (which is on a closed-source project), I will be much happier having those fixes merged…

The title is a literal command, it doesn't need to "imply" anything, because it is what he is telling you [not] to do.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#34

Post by dec0dedab0de »

jerf wrote: post #25
rqs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the title and the tone implies that you as a contributor should be a FOSS maximalist. But what if somebody was changed the license from BSD to proprietary after you've contributed to the project? Would you still be happy about it then? I think the idea was: I have my code contributed under BSD, so you cannot re-license my code without clearance from me.

To have contributed under BSD means that you have contributed under a license that permits relicensing. To contribute under the "BSD license but secretly I'm not going to let you relicense" means that you have not in fact contributed under the BSD license in the first place, but your secret license. If you want to contribute under your secret license, what it means is that you don't want to spend any time in the firs…

"BSD license but secretly I'm not going to let you relicense" means that you have not in fact contributed under the BSD license in the first place, but your secret license.

I understand what you're saying, but even if you do release BSD software along with code under a different license, you are still bound by the (very minimal) requirements of the BSD license.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#35

Post by codetrotter »

> Open source is a commitment to your community. Once you make it, you cannot take it back. You don’t get the benefits associated with being an open source project if you have an exit hatch. You may argue that it’s your right to do what you want with your project, but making it open source is explicitly waiving that right.

I open source things I write, and I love open source but I think this stance is disingenuous.

Yes you should maintain your project in the future so that you don’t leave your users hanging to dry, but sometimes life happens and you can’t continue your open source project in its current form.

With a CLA, the creators of a project that would otherwise be unable to continue the project due to lack of funds can develop a proprietary version that they can earn money from licensing to people. And hopefully they will continue to maintain an open source version that receives bug fixes and some features while certain other features are only developed for the proprietary version.

Demanding that those who make open source software do so under strict conditions will only serve to deter people from making open source software in the first place, IMO.

Certainly it can be frustrating to be a user of a software and have them close the source, but what would the alternative be? Probably that it just died, so for you the outcome would be the same.

Open source is great. It saves time and money by letting people and companies make use of the work done by others to save themselves from having to duplicate the effort. But it is never going to be the case that we can demand that someone else continues maintaining a product for us for free.

When a product goes closed source, from your point of view it should not be much different from had it shut down completely. The last open source version of the product is still available so if someone was goinging to step up and maintain it into the future they still can, and if they weren’t going to, well then it makes no big difference what the original authors decide to do anyway.

Personally the main reason I don’t use CLAs for my projects is that I am using a very permissive license for most of my projects already, the ISC license, and I don’t foresee any situation where I would want to switch to another license for my projects.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#36

Post by radarsat1 »

RobertSmith wrote: post #6

CLA intimidates people to contribute. It discourages contributions

Why would people contribute to a project they don't agree to the license of? Isn't it good to discourage contributions from people who don't agree in the first place, avoiding future conflict?

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#37

Post by Legogris »

ddevault wrote: post #30
Legogris wrote: post #4

It's a great point to be aware of, but the title and the tone implies that you as a contributor should be a FOSS maximalist. As they say, not all open source is FOSS. And some people are OK with that. Let them contribute, as long as they are aware of the implications. When I discover bugs in open-source projects during my day job (which is on a closed-source project), I will be much happier having those fixes merged…

Author here. Thanks for writing up your thoughts. >As they say, not all open source is FOSS This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". >> Free and open source software licenses grant explicit freedoms to three groups: the maintainers, the users, and the contributors. >This is not the case of all open source licenses This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: https://openso…

Good points, thanks for the clarifications.

> I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but that's kind of how it came across as I read it.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#38

Post by trulyrandom »

I've always been under the impression that CLA's are meant to ensure that contributors can not retract their contributions once they've made them. I'd be fine with signing such an agreement. Relicensing other people's work, on the other hand, does seem like a dramatic overreach indeed.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#39

Post by calcifer »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #26
Legogris wrote: post #4

It's a great point to be aware of, but the title and the tone implies that you as a contributor should be a FOSS maximalist. As they say, not all open source is FOSS. And some people are OK with that. Let them contribute, as long as they are aware of the implications. When I discover bugs in open-source projects during my day job (which is on a closed-source project), I will be much happier having those fixes merged…

As they say, not all open source is FOSS... > Free and open source software licenses grant explicit freedoms to three groups: the maintainers, the users, and the contributors. This is not the case of all open source licenses... Wrong. FOSS = Free Open Source Software, which is really redundant, because all Open Source Software is Free Software. Open Source is essentially the marketing branch of Free Software. The Ope…

> because all Open Source Software is Free Software

It's exactly the opposite: All Free Software is open source, but not vice versa [1].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#40

Post by duckerude »

hyperpape wrote: post #17

An interesting contrast among FOSS maximalists is that the FSF requires a CLA for a subset of its projects: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

The agreement does put a lot of limits on what the FSF can do with it.

https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html

>The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any work "based on the Work," that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms.

It goes on like that for a bit, to essentially promise that your software will always stay free (as in freedom).

It also gives you (but not the FSF) the right to use your own code in proprietary software, with 30 days notice.

It's unlike CLAs as described in the article.

Post reply on HN