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

91–100 of 196 posts

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#91

Post by blihp »

lmm wrote: post #44
ddevault wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? In both cases the project's ability to "go closed source" seems substantially the same, so it seems to me that your arguments ag…

It entirely depends on the CLA. But the CLAs I've seen referenced generally only do one thing: give the entity who issued the CLA the rights to do pretty much whatever they want with your code (one key right is often the ability to go closed source or otherwise re-license the work without the author's permission) while usually granting the author no additional rights or consideration. It is often as close as you can get to assigning copyright without actually assigning it (i.e. you're still the author but you've pretty much given up your rights to you contribution)

There's nothing wrong with this if it's what you want to do especially say if it's for work. But depending on your priorities, it may not be in your best interests.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#92

Post by scrollaway »

sevensor wrote: post #74
jpablo wrote: post #20

Wait, Free Software Foundation requires a CLA itself! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

They do, and I believe it's because it gives them a better platform from which to pursue GPL violation claims. I think that's basically sensible and an exception to OP's general statement -- if you're contributing to an FSF project, you need to understand that what you're doing is political as well as technical. You're giving FSF more ammunition with which to enforce copyleft. FSF is an exception to the concern that…

In other words, "do as I say, not as I do".

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#93

Post by btilly »

As a counterpoint, read https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html where the GNU project explains why they require copyright assignments.

And their stated issues are not trivial. I have personally run into a few cases where people thought that they owned their work, but actually it was owned by their employer. I don't have to look very far - it happened to me personally when I lived in New York. (Not entirely coincidentally, I now live in California where it is much easier to retain ownership of any side project that I might happen to do.)

Yes, it is handing them extra power that is abusable. However it is also power that they may have legitimate reasons to want. As with all legal agreements, the real question is what you are afraid of.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#94

Post by lmm »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #48
lmm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? In both cases the project's ability to "go closed source" seems substantially the same, so it seems to me that your arguments ag…

What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? Most non-copyleft open-source licenses have their own requirements that must be followed even when re-licensing. Also, technically if you don't pay for code the copyright holder can revoke the lice…

> Most non-copyleft open-source licenses have their own requirements that must be followed even when re-licensing.

There's not much in the way of substantial requirements that can be effectively included in a non-copyleft license, because to grant rights to end users in ways that will ensure that they can actually exercise them you have to put significant restrictions on the distributor. E.g. the LGPL managed to be "copyleft enough" to be incompatible with app stores, and still offers the end user very little that they wouldn't get from an MIT-like permissive license.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#95

Post by kodablah »

> used their CLA to pull along any external contributions for the ride. As thanks for the generous time

Am I the only one that doesn't over-value their own contributions? So many copy-left proponents always bemoan giving your work away. While that may hold some water on some large efforts, in general, who cares if you give away bits of your work? Who cares if you sign it away? Don't get hung up on your personal pride like your contribution is the greatest thing ever, feel free to share and share alike even on projects with caveats to your sharing, even if that means you are guilted by the forced-freedom side of the community. Or don't...but no need to pretend like others are bad for doing so.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#97

Post by hitekker »

Legogris wrote: post #37
ddevault wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don’t be sorry. Tone is the tinge of the subconscious.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#98

Post by dec0dedab0de »

lmm wrote: post #94
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? Most non-copyleft open-source licenses have their own requirements that must be followed even when re-licensing. Also, technically if you don't pay for code the copyright holder can revoke the lice…

> Most non-copyleft open-source licenses have their own requirements that must be followed even when re-licensing. There's not much in the way of substantial requirements that can be effectively included in a non-copyleft license, because to grant rights to end users in ways that will ensure that they can actually exercise them you have to put significant restrictions on the distributor. E.g. the LGPL managed to be "…

I was specifically thinking of attribution. If you make a significant contribution, you probably have your name, or your company in the copyright notice for that code. the BSD license requires that to be with all copies no matter the end user license.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#99

Post by sevensor »

scrollaway wrote: post #92
sevensor wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, and I believe it's because it gives them a better platform from which to pursue GPL violation claims. I think that's basically sensible and an exception to OP's general statement -- if you're contributing to an FSF project, you need to understand that what you're doing is political as well as technical. You're giving FSF more ammunition with which to enforce copyleft. FSF is an exception to the concern that…

In other words, "do as I say, not as I do".

That's an odd conclusion to draw from my post. Are you under the impression that OP represents the FSF? He does not. Neither do I. My point is that the general rule that one should be wary of CLAs because they can be used to take away your software freedoms probably doesn't apply to the FSF. A different consideration applies to the FSF -- if you don't like their political goals, don't support them by contributing to their projects.

Re: Don’t sign a CLA

#100

Post by JdeBP »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #62
calcifer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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....

I guess I stand corrected. I never heard of the “Open Watcom” license before. But if it really does not allow modified copies to run locally then it is violating criteria 1, and 3 of the Open Source Definition. I am surprised the OSI approved it.

Here's the licence.

* http://perforce.openwatcom.org:4000/@md=d&c=GxS@//depot/open...

As you can see, it says the opposite. Per §2 you must publish your modified source if you deploy it per §1 in ways including "any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use and/or Personal Use".

Richard Stallman dislikes the idea of being forced to publish source code when the modified application is being published internally within a business. Ironically, and rather confusingly, being required to publish source in such additional circumstances he deems "too restrictive", right after calling open source licensing "looser" than free software. (Pick one direction for the metaphor and stick with it, M. Stallman. (-:)

This oddity comes about because freedom is also the freedom to not give one's software source code to other people. Whereas the Sybase licence makes it mandatory to publish modified source even when the compiled modified software is not being given to the public at large.

It's not hard, furthermore, to see why terms that require giving people the source code in more circumstances remain compatible with the principles of open source.

Post reply on HN