6 ms·

Yes, many projects do not, but some very popular ones do: Google Go requires one. Apache requires one. Some FSF projects require one. I could go on, but the

Yes, many projects do not, but some very popular ones do: Google Go requires one. Apache requires one. Some FSF projects require one. I could go on, but the point is that CLAs exist for good reasons. There may be another, different way to accomplish the same goals, but since it isn't my pocketbook funding the project, I don't feel like I have a right to complain. As such, just because a project has a CLA doesn't mean there's anything nefarious or inhibiting going on.

krisdol 11y ago
In the case of the MIT license, I don't see much harm in throwing in a CLA because it's nearly impossible for Microsoft to do anything to break the terms of the license; however, while I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, in general signing a CLA (including in this instance) often gives the other party rights to re-license the work and continue to use the work if they end up in violation of the original license. For istance, a hugely popular, third-party Minecraft modification platform called Bukkit was partially licensed under the GPL (v2, I believe); however, it turned out that this code was not permitted to be distributed as GPL because it linked to to proprietary code, and Mojang was not eager to open source anything anytime soon. Because contributors submitted their contributions to be used under the terms of the GPL, and the project failed to meet the requirements of the GPL, contributors were then able to file legal DMCA notices of copyright infringement to take down the project. Regardless of what license the project is filed under, as an individual contributor working for free for the community, the license of a project determines the terms under which I am sharing my work. I expect those to be respected in perpetuity, and I would like the right to rescind my contribution if the copyright holder is in violation of the license. (Please don't turn this into a GPL vs MIT discussion) EDIT Echoing other responders here, if you downvoted I would really appreciate the discussion of why.
- binarycrusader 11y ago
  Regardless of what license the project is filed under, as an individual contributor working for free for the community, the license of a project determines the terms under which I am sharing my work. I expect those to be respected in perpetuity, and I would like the right to rescind my contribution if the copyright holder is in violation of the license. The CLA is just another license to consider with the project; just like projects that have the "any later version" GPL clause. That little addition is important to some individuals. I think a more successful argument would be against the lack of specific guarantees in existing CLAs, rather than CLAs themselves. For example, the CLA could give joint copyright to the involved parties, but also agree to only publish the code under a license published by the Free Software Foundation. CLAs, as you point out, are sometimes a necessary mechanism to ensure that a project can correct licensing issues when they arise. Obviously, through careful choice of licensing it may be possible to avoid the need for a CLA entirely, such as is starting to be done with the Apache License 2.0 by some projects. So I would think of this differently: depending on the license, some projects may need a CLA for protections only available to them with one. For those projects, the community should encourage them to encode their intentions in the CLA to assuage fears and provide certain guarantees to contributors. Finally, keep in mind that the entire world does not follow US Contract / Copyright law (or even the bern conventions). In some countries, a CLA may be the only possible way to ensure that a project won't have problems later. While the current versions of today's "free software" licenses have generally tried to account for that, legal situations change over time.
  - carussell 11y ago
    > CLA could give joint copyright to the involved parties Licensing to allow joint copyright isn't really a thing in the US. Anyone trying to craft a license that formalizes joint ownership after the fact is going to have a not-so-fun time trying to make that work.

krisdol 11y ago

In the case of the MIT license, I don't see much harm in throwing in a CLA because it's nearly impossible for Microsoft to do anything to break the terms of the license; however, while I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, in general signing a CLA (including in this instance) often gives the other party rights to re-license the work and continue to use the work if they end up in violation of the original license. For istance, a hugely popular, third-party Minecraft modification platform called Bukkit was partially licensed under the GPL (v2, I believe); however, it turned out that this code was not permitted to be distributed as GPL because it linked to to proprietary code, and Mojang was not eager to open source anything anytime soon. Because contributors submitted their contributions to be used under the terms of the GPL, and the project failed to meet the requirements of the GPL, contributors were then able to file legal DMCA notices of copyright infringement to take down the project. Regardless of what license the project is filed under, as an individual contributor working for free for the community, the license of a project determines the terms under which I am sharing my work. I expect those to be respected in perpetuity, and I would like the right to rescind my contribution if the copyright holder is in violation of the license. (Please don't turn this into a GPL vs MIT discussion) EDIT Echoing other responders here, if you downvoted I would really appreciate the discussion of why.

binarycrusader 11y ago
Regardless of what license the project is filed under, as an individual contributor working for free for the community, the license of a project determines the terms under which I am sharing my work. I expect those to be respected in perpetuity, and I would like the right to rescind my contribution if the copyright holder is in violation of the license. The CLA is just another license to consider with the project; just like projects that have the "any later version" GPL clause. That little addition is important to some individuals. I think a more successful argument would be against the lack of specific guarantees in existing CLAs, rather than CLAs themselves. For example, the CLA could give joint copyright to the involved parties, but also agree to only publish the code under a license published by the Free Software Foundation. CLAs, as you point out, are sometimes a necessary mechanism to ensure that a project can correct licensing issues when they arise. Obviously, through careful choice of licensing it may be possible to avoid the need for a CLA entirely, such as is starting to be done with the Apache License 2.0 by some projects. So I would think of this differently: depending on the license, some projects may need a CLA for protections only available to them with one. For those projects, the community should encourage them to encode their intentions in the CLA to assuage fears and provide certain guarantees to contributors. Finally, keep in mind that the entire world does not follow US Contract / Copyright law (or even the bern conventions). In some countries, a CLA may be the only possible way to ensure that a project won't have problems later. While the current versions of today's "free software" licenses have generally tried to account for that, legal situations change over time.
- carussell 11y ago
  > CLA could give joint copyright to the involved parties Licensing to allow joint copyright isn't really a thing in the US. Anyone trying to craft a license that formalizes joint ownership after the fact is going to have a not-so-fun time trying to make that work.