Hi, I run an open source project and it has a CLA. I chose a fairly permissive one (contributors retain ownership/copyright), however it does allow relicensing.

Hi, I run an open source project and it has a CLA. I chose a fairly permissive one (contributors retain ownership/copyright), however it does allow relicensing. One of the main reasons I chose to do this is: 1. I have a put a lot of time into the project. More than anybody. Years of work. At some point, I'd like to be able to make money off of it, and relicensing will give me that option (enterprise installations and all that). 2. iOS. The GPL, from a lot of what I've read, is incompatible with the Apple store. If you want to release a GPL-licensed app on iOS, you need to be able to relicense it. Please prove me wrong here, but I think this is a big deal. Here's my take. If I ever want to make the project completely closed, the last GPLed version is still available and able to be forked or continued. I can't erase the project from the face of the earth, which is kind of what the author seems to be suggesting. Secondly, if I was starting a project that blossomed with the help of hundreds of contributors, I'd be much more likely to not want a CLA. That said, this is my project. Sure, anyone can fork it and do what they want with it, but I am the one creating it. And at some point, I want that to pay off. My choice of GPL is not to protect contributors, it's to protect the users. The CLA lets me have a restrictive license while giving me the freedom to relicense as needed. If that keeps you from contributing, no hard feelings. But having a CLA lets me navigate a lot of issues that would otherwise keep me up at night (or make me not want to maintain the project at all).