4 ms·

An interesting contrast among FOSS maximalists is that the FSF requires a CLA for a subset of its projects: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html https:/

An interesting contrast among FOSS maximalists is that the FSF requires a CLA for a subset of its projects: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I think the FSF gets a pass here, given that the GPL has explicit protections against the negative behaviors warned about in the article.
- akerl_ 8y ago
  Wouldn't your article then more accurately be "Don't sign a CLA without reading it and making sure you agree with what it says", which reduces pretty cleanly to "Don't sign things unless you've read them and agree with them"? Your overall point seems to be one I agree with, which is "CLAs can be (and often are) used to enable maintainers to make decisions that contributors wouldn't want to be made, and contributors should thus be careful in what they agree to", but in making it an imperative headline it's lost the nuance.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Well, I could make a CLA which asks you to remember to drink your Ovaltine, which would be pretty harmless. But the average CLA is far from harmless, so it deserves special mention to call out these CLAs as harmful. Some CLAs are worse than others, though, and as people send me examples of supposedly benine CLAs I've been writing up addendums to add to the bottom of the article. There is indeed some nuance here, which I hope to address in that manner.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  I can see your point of view, though one nitpick: the GPL doesn't prevent shenanigans any more than an MIT license. With a CLA, the owners can relicense the code as a non-open source license. With both MIT or GPL, you retain the rights to develop the previously released code. It's the FSF's commitment (mentioned upthread) to not do that which arguably makes it safe to sign a CLA with the FSF.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    But with the GPL, all future modifications to the code are required to also be GPL. You cannot make a closed-source fork of a GPL'd project.
    - hyperpape 8y ago
      A third party can’t, but the copyright holder can. That’s why some companies release GPL’d software with a closed commercial version. We can generally trust the FSF not to, but copyright gives you that right.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        Right, but they're not the copyright holder. This is often the purpose of the CLA and the reason you shouldn't sign it. Edit: thought I was on a different thread. You're right on this one.
duckerude 8y ago
The agreement does put a lot of limits on what the FSF can do with it. https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html >The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any work "based on the Work," that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. It goes on like that for a bit, to essentially promise that your software will always stay free (as in freedom). It also gives you (but not the FSF) the right to use your own code in proprietary software, with 30 days notice. It's unlike CLAs as described in the article.
rurban 8y ago
It limits a lot of contributions, yes. It's certainly "unfree". But I still signed it happily, even if I agree with a lot of op's points. In my case I need the FSF to defend any evil actions which did happen before with these type of packages (libredwg), and will happen again. I certainly don't want to be at the end of such a lawsuit or infringement claim (like illegally using a trademark), and I'm happy that the FSF will defend us. Even if the external contributions are 10x lower than with a non-gnu project and it's a pain.

An interesting contrast among FOSS maximalists is that the FSF requires a CLA for a subset of its projects: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

I think the FSF gets a pass here, given that the GPL has explicit protections against the negative behaviors warned about in the article.

akerl_ 8y ago
Wouldn't your article then more accurately be "Don't sign a CLA without reading it and making sure you agree with what it says", which reduces pretty cleanly to "Don't sign things unless you've read them and agree with them"? Your overall point seems to be one I agree with, which is "CLAs can be (and often are) used to enable maintainers to make decisions that contributors wouldn't want to be made, and contributors should thus be careful in what they agree to", but in making it an imperative headline it's lost the nuance.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Well, I could make a CLA which asks you to remember to drink your Ovaltine, which would be pretty harmless. But the average CLA is far from harmless, so it deserves special mention to call out these CLAs as harmful. Some CLAs are worse than others, though, and as people send me examples of supposedly benine CLAs I've been writing up addendums to add to the bottom of the article. There is indeed some nuance here, which I hope to address in that manner.
hyperpape 8y ago
I can see your point of view, though one nitpick: the GPL doesn't prevent shenanigans any more than an MIT license. With a CLA, the owners can relicense the code as a non-open source license. With both MIT or GPL, you retain the rights to develop the previously released code. It's the FSF's commitment (mentioned upthread) to not do that which arguably makes it safe to sign a CLA with the FSF.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  But with the GPL, all future modifications to the code are required to also be GPL. You cannot make a closed-source fork of a GPL'd project.
  - hyperpape 8y ago
    A third party can’t, but the copyright holder can. That’s why some companies release GPL’d software with a closed commercial version. We can generally trust the FSF not to, but copyright gives you that right.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      Right, but they're not the copyright holder. This is often the purpose of the CLA and the reason you shouldn't sign it. Edit: thought I was on a different thread. You're right on this one.

duckerude 8y ago

The agreement does put a lot of limits on what the FSF can do with it. https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html >The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any work "based on the Work," that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. It goes on like that for a bit, to essentially promise that your software will always stay free (as in freedom). It also gives you (but not the FSF) the right to use your own code in proprietary software, with 30 days notice. It's unlike CLAs as described in the article.

rurban 8y ago

It limits a lot of contributions, yes. It's certainly "unfree". But I still signed it happily, even if I agree with a lot of op's points. In my case I need the FSF to defend any evil actions which did happen before with these type of packages (libredwg), and will happen again. I certainly don't want to be at the end of such a lawsuit or infringement claim (like illegally using a trademark), and I'm happy that the FSF will defend us. Even if the external contributions are 10x lower than with a non-gnu project and it's a pain.