3 ms·

And you think this will work in practice? Hint: They'll just rip out your code. I know it may be shocking, but companies are going to do what they want. Repl

And you think this will work in practice? Hint: They'll just rip out your code. I know it may be shocking, but companies are going to do what they want. Replacing the code of even hundreds of contributors, given a bunch of full time engineers, is just not that big a deal. This is even more true when, as here, the project almost entirely made by a small group of engineers (which is the case for a lot of projects). Legal infrastructure will not solve these problems for single projects. Additionally, even companies that have "good" CLA's find ways to be evil. Doing things like threatening other companies over the "compilation copyright" they claim they own on the work, etc. So yeah. Bottom line: CLA's, no CLA's, whatever, none of it is loophole or problem free, and there is no simple solution to these problems.

quadrangle 11y ago
Planning to rip out code after accepting it is silly. Yes, I suppose people could do that if they don't plan to make a proprietary fork but change their mind later. clearly, the issue is whether the contributions amount to a substantial enough part of the software that the ripping out isn't feasible. Also, if you build up a community and then violate their trust, you lose the community. It's not a great strategy.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "Planning to rip out code after accepting it is silly." They didn't plan on it. Plans changed. "clearly, the issue is whether the contributions amount to a substantial enough part of the software that the ripping out isn't feasible." Having legally supervised tons of these processes for open source projects (most trying to relicense things after discovering their licenses were hurting their communities): It's always feasible. Actual code is often not that important. Knowing what code to write is often important. (I know there are beautiful unique snowflakes who think otherwise ;p) "Also, if you build up a community and then violate their trust, you lose the community. It's not a great strategy. " Sure, but you assume "random people kibitzing on hacker news" represents their community. For all you know, the actually community is entirely in favor! Again, IME, having helped projects through these processes, there is often a huge difference in opinion between the people kibitzing on the sidelines and those who actually contributed meaningfully. My experience is that people who contribute meaningfully are often more sympathetic and understanding of various situations. People who are kibitzing from the sidelines are often more ideological.

quadrangle 11y ago

Planning to rip out code after accepting it is silly. Yes, I suppose people could do that if they don't plan to make a proprietary fork but change their mind later. clearly, the issue is whether the contributions amount to a substantial enough part of the software that the ripping out isn't feasible. Also, if you build up a community and then violate their trust, you lose the community. It's not a great strategy.

DannyBee 11y ago
"Planning to rip out code after accepting it is silly." They didn't plan on it. Plans changed. "clearly, the issue is whether the contributions amount to a substantial enough part of the software that the ripping out isn't feasible." Having legally supervised tons of these processes for open source projects (most trying to relicense things after discovering their licenses were hurting their communities): It's always feasible. Actual code is often not that important. Knowing what code to write is often important. (I know there are beautiful unique snowflakes who think otherwise ;p) "Also, if you build up a community and then violate their trust, you lose the community. It's not a great strategy. " Sure, but you assume "random people kibitzing on hacker news" represents their community. For all you know, the actually community is entirely in favor! Again, IME, having helped projects through these processes, there is often a huge difference in opinion between the people kibitzing on the sidelines and those who actually contributed meaningfully. My experience is that people who contribute meaningfully are often more sympathetic and understanding of various situations. People who are kibitzing from the sidelines are often more ideological.