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

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

utcc.utoronto.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

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

#21

Post by gavinhoward »

I agree with this, but at the same time, that's exactly why I will have a CLA.

I am a one-man shop. I struggle to read code written by others because I struggle to build theory of mind.

So I do not want your contributions. My CLA is supposed to drive you away from giving them to me.

But on the flip side, I also want to be able to give commercial licenses to customers instead of the current AGPL-like license I have. For that, I need a CLA.

I also want to relicense to more permissive ones in the future after I'm established. I also want to release my stuff into the public domain on my death. For that, I need a CLA.

So I apologize, but my CLA is meant to stop you from contributing, but it's also important for making things more permissive later.

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

#22

Post by regularfry »

phkahler wrote: post #20

We used to have a CLA for Solvespace (CAD) which is under the GPL3 license. There was some pressure to eliminate it, and some practical reasons as well so we dropped it. Since then, both FreeCAD (assembly 3) and Blender (via CAD sketcher add-on) have been using our constraint solver to great effect. Unfortunately they will probably never be able to tightly integrate it because both those projects are under GPLv2. I s…

I think I'm right in saying that the FreeCAD integration problem could be solved on the solvespace side by relicensing the solver library as LGPL while retaining the GPL for the solvespace application itself. That keeps the set of licenses within your list, and applies the one intended for libraries to the library component. I'm sure that's been suggested and rejected before though - what's your take?

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

#23

Post by bkor »

amtamt wrote: post #12

Can there be somewhat standardized CLAs, along the lines of Apache/ MIT... licenses?

I'm aware of the following: https://harmonyagreements.org/

Still, CLAs are a barrier on their own already. Standardizing them doesn't help. Plus as another commenter mentioned: sometimes a standard CLA is used but then various bits aren't filled in.

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

#24

Post by jcelerier »

phkahler wrote: post #20

We used to have a CLA for Solvespace (CAD) which is under the GPL3 license. There was some pressure to eliminate it, and some practical reasons as well so we dropped it. Since then, both FreeCAD (assembly 3) and Blender (via CAD sketcher add-on) have been using our constraint solver to great effect. Unfortunately they will probably never be able to tightly integrate it because both those projects are under GPLv2. I s…

Many projects without a CLA could relicense though, e.g. LLVM

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

#25

Post by aragilar »

rurban wrote: post #10
milliams wrote: post #5

This is where I like the FSFE's Fiduciary License Agreement ( https://fsfe.org/activities/fla/fla.en.html ). It's more explicit about protecting free software. They solve a different problem to most CLAs, but align better with what I want my relationship with a project to be. For example KDE uses it ( https://ev.kde.org/rules/fla/ ).

How many weeks does this need? I've lost many contributions over the insane FSF contributors license workflow. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/new-contributors-frequen...

FSF != FSFE.

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

#26

Post by A1kmm »

bmitc wrote: post #17

How is a CLA any different of a legal agreement than agreeing to a license? The CLAs I have seen basically boil down to the project maintainers maintaining ownership of the code, ability to adjust the license if desired, and protect them from people contributing code that the contributor doesn't have the rights for. I have seen projects suffer from single contributors stubbornly refusing to budge on relicensing, even…

If I contribute to an AGPL project and license my changes back to you under AGPL, that means you can't one day decide to start selling my changes together with a closed-source module; the copyleft works to protect me against you deciding to take my changes closed-source, not just to protect the original maintainer from that.

If I contribute to an AGPL project and sign a CLA that assigns copyright to you, you might announce tomorrow that you are going to run off with my contribution and start only releasing new versions under a non-FOSS licence. This fear applies particularly if you are a for-profit company who might one day lose your desire to do FOSS.

This exact thing, in fact (other than the AGPL part anyway) happened recently with just about every Hashicorp project - so it is not just some hypothetical fear.

I would not contribute (unless I was being paid) to someone else's project unless there was no CLA (inbound = outbound licensing), or they were a not-for-profit with appropriate constitutional limitations on profit-seeking behaviour.

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

#27

Post by coldpie »

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_…

Just like cookie banners, CLAs are one of those idiot lawyer things where some jackass at a big corp invented the idea to justify their paycheck, and now everyone cargo cults it because they think they need it. 99% of projects do not need a CLA and 99% of websites do not need a cookie banner.

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

#28

Post by coldpie »

phkahler wrote: post #20

We used to have a CLA for Solvespace (CAD) which is under the GPL3 license. There was some pressure to eliminate it, and some practical reasons as well so we dropped it. Since then, both FreeCAD (assembly 3) and Blender (via CAD sketcher add-on) have been using our constraint solver to great effect. Unfortunately they will probably never be able to tightly integrate it because both those projects are under GPLv2. I s…

> but we no longer have a CLA so relicensing or dual licensing is off the table.

Why is it off the table? Email your contributors and ask if anyone objects. If they object or don't reply, you can probably rewrite the code they contributed, or argue it's too small/trivial to justify a copyright claim. To be blunt, it's extremely unlikely someone is going to sue or even raise a stink over a small contribution. It's more work than if you had a CLA, yeah, but it's not off the table.

> On a related note, this is why proliferation of FLOSS licenses is bad. Use MIT, BSD, GPL3, or LGPL and call it a day.

100% agree.

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

#29

Post by electroly »

gavinhoward wrote: post #21

I agree with this, but at the same time, that's exactly why I will have a CLA. I am a one-man shop. I struggle to read code written by others because I struggle to build theory of mind. So I do not want your contributions. My CLA is supposed to drive you away from giving them to me. But on the flip side, I also want to be able to give commercial licenses to customers instead of the current AGPL-like license I have. F…

If you don't have any other contributors, you're free to offer any license to anyone you'd like. Simply not accepting contributions will do the trick; you don't also need a CLA in that situation. It doesn't make sense to have a CLA for a project that doesn't accept contributions.

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

#30

Post by rurban »

aragilar wrote: post #25
rurban wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many weeks does this need? I've lost many contributions over the insane FSF contributors license workflow. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/new-contributors-frequen...

FSF != FSFE.

I do hope very much. FSFE is the evil empire, the FSF the good one
Post reply on HN