3 ms·

This is not a copyright assignment and not an authorization to publish under a different license. Canonical's CLA adds the additional paragraph to enable that:

This is not a copyright assignment and not an authorization to publish under a different license. Canonical's CLA adds the additional paragraph to enable that: Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also license the Contribution under the terms of the license or licenses which We are using for the Material on the Submission Date.

Steeeve 9y ago
I hate to say it, but you have a perfectly valid point. I hate to say it because it makes changing the license significantly more problematic than it seemingly was an hour or two ago. By changing the license, Facebook assumed rights to contributions that it does not have. Even if the licenses are _compatible_, releasing contributions under a different license is not allowed without permission from the contributors. This is a change from a permissive open source license to another permissive open source license, but what if my GPL contributions to a project were released under BSD? Or what if they were released under a proprietary commercial license? In either case, I might not have contributed, and I should have the right to rescind my contribution to prevent it from being included under a new license. It's an interesting quagmire, and one that FB's choice of license was destined to lead into at some point. I think it was a bad decision from the get-go. This is not the first major licensing snafu. A lot of projects ran into similar issues trying to adopt GPLv3 when it first came about. And I have seen a few other projects deal with community uprisings as other license changes came about. Personally, I think FB should adopt the combined apache/GPL license, adopt CLA language like you've stated, and provide notice that developers can rescind contributions if they don't agree. Perhaps do a tri-license of Apache/GPL/BSD if there's significant kickback. Their current license is a problem and too much of a continuing distraction. JMO.
- dchest 9y ago
  Even if the licenses are _compatible_, releasing contributions under a different license is not allowed without permission from the contributors. If you read the CLA, the contributors agree to allow Facebook to sublicense their contributions. Which is what Facebook is doing. FYI, the dual-licensed it under APv2/GPL.
  - Steeeve 9y ago
    I'm splitting hairs, but 'sublicense' and 'sublicense under any license of our choosing' are two different things. I'm surprised FB's CLA isn't more explicit.
dchest 9y ago
True, it's not a copyright assignment, so Facebook should probably maintain the list of copyright owners somewhere (e.g. Go has (C) Go Authors and the list of authors is in a separate file), however, the CLA terms I quoted allow sublicensing. When signing the CLA, you grant Facebook the copyright license to your contributions, which Facebook then sublicenses to everyone else with the license of their choosing (as long as this license doesn't grant more rights than in the CLA.)
- vbernat 9y ago
  I honestly don't know what "sublicensing" exactly means. However, Canonical's CLA which explicitely says they can relicense at will has a special clause for that (and as a result, many people don't want to sign this CLA). I don't think that "sublicensing" (which is present in many CLA people are happy to sign) means the same thing.
  - dchest 9y ago
    Sublicensing means granting some or all rights licensed to you to third parties. The original license agreement for contributions is the CLA, the receiving party of the CLA sublicenses some of the rights from the CLA to others in the form of the project's copyright license.

Steeeve 9y ago

I hate to say it, but you have a perfectly valid point. I hate to say it because it makes changing the license significantly more problematic than it seemingly was an hour or two ago. By changing the license, Facebook assumed rights to contributions that it does not have. Even if the licenses are _compatible_, releasing contributions under a different license is not allowed without permission from the contributors. This is a change from a permissive open source license to another permissive open source license, but what if my GPL contributions to a project were released under BSD? Or what if they were released under a proprietary commercial license? In either case, I might not have contributed, and I should have the right to rescind my contribution to prevent it from being included under a new license. It's an interesting quagmire, and one that FB's choice of license was destined to lead into at some point. I think it was a bad decision from the get-go. This is not the first major licensing snafu. A lot of projects ran into similar issues trying to adopt GPLv3 when it first came about. And I have seen a few other projects deal with community uprisings as other license changes came about. Personally, I think FB should adopt the combined apache/GPL license, adopt CLA language like you've stated, and provide notice that developers can rescind contributions if they don't agree. Perhaps do a tri-license of Apache/GPL/BSD if there's significant kickback. Their current license is a problem and too much of a continuing distraction. JMO.

dchest 9y ago
Even if the licenses are _compatible_, releasing contributions under a different license is not allowed without permission from the contributors. If you read the CLA, the contributors agree to allow Facebook to sublicense their contributions. Which is what Facebook is doing. FYI, the dual-licensed it under APv2/GPL.
- Steeeve 9y ago
  I'm splitting hairs, but 'sublicense' and 'sublicense under any license of our choosing' are two different things. I'm surprised FB's CLA isn't more explicit.

dchest 9y ago

True, it's not a copyright assignment, so Facebook should probably maintain the list of copyright owners somewhere (e.g. Go has (C) Go Authors and the list of authors is in a separate file), however, the CLA terms I quoted allow sublicensing. When signing the CLA, you grant Facebook the copyright license to your contributions, which Facebook then sublicenses to everyone else with the license of their choosing (as long as this license doesn't grant more rights than in the CLA.)

vbernat 9y ago
I honestly don't know what "sublicensing" exactly means. However, Canonical's CLA which explicitely says they can relicense at will has a special clause for that (and as a result, many people don't want to sign this CLA). I don't think that "sublicensing" (which is present in many CLA people are happy to sign) means the same thing.
- dchest 9y ago
  Sublicensing means granting some or all rights licensed to you to third parties. The original license agreement for contributions is the CLA, the receiving party of the CLA sublicenses some of the rights from the CLA to others in the form of the project's copyright license.