3 ms·
However, since ChakraCore is released under a permissive license (like most corporate open source projects), Microsoft could do the same thing without a CLA. I
by comex 11y ago
However, since ChakraCore is released under a permissive license (like most corporate open source projects), Microsoft could do the same thing without a CLA. It matters more when something is under a GPL variant...
- carussell 11y agoIt's a good point, but it matters for Apache licensed code, too, because Apache 2.0 has a self-destruct clause in the patent grant to keep all parties' lawyers in check. CLAs (like the one Microsoft uses) routes around that. The way this ends up working for Microsoft projects licensed under Apache 2.0 is that it essentially allows Microsoft to do anything with the contributions (as if it were licensed under MIT, with a liberal interpretation of the implied patent grant), but requires everyone else to continue abiding by Apache 2.0. Not exactly balanced. EDIT: I'm totally confused about why people are having a problem with this comment.
- krisdol 11y ago>I'm totally confused about why people are having a problem with this comment. It seems like half of this submission is a graveyard. Disappointing.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoAnything that discusses MS seems to attract this kind of rather heavy down-voting.