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

151–160 of 196 posts

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#151

Post by JoshTriplett »

IAmLiterallyAB wrote: post #145

Have we forgotten the Linux Code of Conduct controversy? Contributors threatened to remove their code from the kernel. A CLA would completely prevent that.

> Contributors threatened to remove their code from the kernel.

No. Random fringe anonymous emails from non-contributors claimed (incorrectly) that developers could do so.

See https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil... and https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x... for details (incorporating actual legal analysis).

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#152

Post by dllthomas »

Legogris wrote: post #78
craigsmansion wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to go full Stallman and say that everything but GPL is evil. Can you provide a quote where he says or implies such a thing?

I wasn't necessarily referring to the author here, it is more of a straw-man really. Could have worded that better.

I interpreted the comment above as speaking of Stallman's positions, not the author's. I still suspect that's the case, although I now see that there's ambiguity I missed on first read.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#154

Post by mjg59 »

MayorMonty wrote: post #142
mjg59 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Other than version 1 of the Apple Public Source license, which is considered open source but not free (and also now entirely unused), what cases are you thinking of?

In the past I've run into projects where the source was on GitHub where you could compile yourself, but binaries needed to be purchased. Lemme see if I can find it

There's plenty of non-free code on github, but it's still not open source and nobody seriously refers to it as such.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#155

Post by hyperpape »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #138
hyperpape wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see your point of view, though one nitpick: the GPL doesn't prevent shenanigans any more than an MIT license. With a CLA, the owners can relicense the code as a non-open source license. With both MIT or GPL, you retain the rights to develop the previously released code. It's the FSF's commitment (mentioned upthread) to not do that which arguably makes it safe to sign a CLA with the FSF.

But with the GPL, all future modifications to the code are required to also be GPL. You cannot make a closed-source fork of a GPL'd project.

A third party can’t, but the copyright holder can. That’s why some companies release GPL’d software with a closed commercial version.

We can generally trust the FSF not to, but copyright gives you that right.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#156

Post by juliusmusseau »

DannyBee wrote: post #47

"What the CLA is actually used for is to give the project maintainers the ability to relicense your work under a more restrictive software license, up to and including making it entirely closed source." Actually, it serves two main purposes[1] : 1. Protect the project from people who don't actually have the necessary rights to be contributing or wish to retract contributions later. This is the most common case, and i…

Wow, regarding #1 - am I understanding this correctly? Linus's widow or children can revoke his GPL license of his kernel contributions after he dies unless he covers this scenario explicitly in his will?

Edited to add: Seems there's a 5-year window from year 35-40 after the initial license or grant where the license or grant can be terminated, either by the original author or their heirs, but honestly I have no idea if I'm reading this correctly. This whole statutory terminations thing goes way over my head. I cannot parse this document: https://akbllp.com/introduction-and-copyright-overview/statu...

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#157

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

hyperpape wrote: post #155
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with the GPL, all future modifications to the code are required to also be GPL. You cannot make a closed-source fork of a GPL'd project.

A third party can’t, but the copyright holder can. That’s why some companies release GPL’d software with a closed commercial version. We can generally trust the FSF not to, but copyright gives you that right.

Right, but they're not the copyright holder. This is often the purpose of the CLA and the reason you shouldn't sign it.

Edit: thought I was on a different thread. You're right on this one.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#158

Post by the_why_of_y »

calcifer wrote: post #39
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

Counterexample: the 4-clause BSD license (with the advertising clause) is Free Software, but not Open Source.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD

https://web.archive.org/web/20160116183019/https://opensourc...

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#159

Post by derf_ »

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…

> >I am all-for the FOSS movement but there is no need to go full Stallman and say that everything but GPL is evil

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

Not even Stallman believes this [0]. He has even explicitly endorsed the use of a "lax license" when pragmatic concerns justify it [1].

[0] http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-att...

[1] http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#160

Post by tialaramex »

zaroth wrote: post #143
phoe-krk wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. "Source available" is not the same as "open source". https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSo...

Oh well, if you say so! The point is the adjective is commonly used imprecisely, despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance. Genie, meet bottle.

Reality admits shades between Humpty Dumpty being right‡ and the Prescriptivist utopia where some ivory tower decides how language works.

‡ In "Through the Looking Glass" Humpty Dumpty asserts that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".

So it matters whether it's, say, one pundit who thinks "Source code available to certain parties under license" (e.g. Microsoft Windows has been handled this way in the past) counts as Open Source, or so common that you can find dozens of erroneous examples in every major software publication of the last five years.

People writing "free reign" when they mean "free rein" might be unsalvageable at this point, whereas people saying "backslash" when they mean a forward slash - probably we can still say those people are just wrong and need to sort it out.

Post reply on HN