CLAs create different issues than making (small) open source contributions

Post by tmpX7dMeXU » Mon, Aug 21, 2023, 10:30 AM UTC

pjdesno wrote: post #3

bruce511 wrote: post #2

I think the point was made, but worth emphasising from a different direction. Different organisations have different goals when it comes to releasing code as Open Source. Setting aside universities for the moment, companies (and especially startups) have (hopefully) a strategy which takes their product to commercialism and profitability. Some projects go OSS purely for the marketing, attracting talent, unpaid labour…

I don't think you can set aside universities when you talk about open source - they were the original drivers in this field, and continue to be heavily involved. The biggest difference is probably that most of the software written at a university is done by faculty and grad students and isn't work for hire, so for someone like me there's no reason to ever ask my employer to execute a CLA. But the same problems arise…

Post by saulpw » Mon, Aug 21, 2023, 10:52 AM UTC

williamvds wrote: post #9

cxr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I factor CLAs into my determination of how difficult a project upstream is going to be to work with (incl. whether to remain downstream as a user, too—if I even am at that point) and/or how irrational its maintainers are. It doesn't inspire confidence, for example, when a project doesn't practice good hygiene with respect to keeping a tightly focused bugtracker (usually on the basis that it's too bureaucratic and the…

As soon as I see a CLA I'm turned off even using a piece of FOSS software. I get it's usually just the lawyers protecting the company just in case a contributor tries something dodgy in the future. Out of principle however, I resent the broad assignment of copyright and granting them the right to relicense. Of course I expect most of these projects would never exercise that right, but the mere fact that they _could_…

Post by bmitc » Mon, Aug 21, 2023, 11:28 AM UTC

williamvds wrote: post #9

cxr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I factor CLAs into my determination of how difficult a project upstream is going to be to work with (incl. whether to remain downstream as a user, too—if I even am at that point) and/or how irrational its maintainers are. It doesn't inspire confidence, for example, when a project doesn't practice good hygiene with respect to keeping a tightly focused bugtracker (usually on the basis that it's too bureaucratic and the…

As soon as I see a CLA I'm turned off even using a piece of FOSS software. I get it's usually just the lawyers protecting the company just in case a contributor tries something dodgy in the future. Out of principle however, I resent the broad assignment of copyright and granting them the right to relicense. Of course I expect most of these projects would never exercise that right, but the mere fact that they _could_…

Post by bmitc » Mon, Aug 21, 2023, 11:37 AM UTC

Post by williamvds » Mon, Aug 21, 2023, 11:58 AM UTC

saulpw wrote: post #13

williamvds wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as I see a CLA I'm turned off even using a piece of FOSS software. I get it's usually just the lawyers protecting the company just in case a contributor tries something dodgy in the future. Out of principle however, I resent the broad assignment of copyright and granting them the right to relicense. Of course I expect most of these projects would never exercise that right, but the mere fact that they _could_…

I have a CAA on my GPL project so that I have the right to start releasing it as MIT, that is, more Free. Also so I can dual-license it to a corporation and make a modicum of money from the software that is 98% my work. I absolutely never intend to make future versions non-free (and I don't even have the right to make already released versions non-free). Do you find this disturbing?