I'm not entirely sure I understand why so many people are against CLAs. I've been active in the open source community since 1996, and am currently employed at

I'm not entirely sure I understand why so many people are against CLAs. I've been active in the open source community since 1996, and am currently employed at a company which is 100% based upon service around open source software, which includes our stewardship of several projects which have significantly advanced the community cause. My employer requires a CLA. It is not written in esoteric legalese, but is rather simple to understand before you sign it. It is designed to protect both you, as the contributor, and my employer. A CLA is a good thing when it's written well, is not overly onerous, and is being used to further contributions. Here is some basic reasons why a company like my employer may want contributors to sign a CLA: 1. It prevents your heirs from terminating your copyright grants in the future if you pass away or any number of other weird quirks of US copyright law that could potentially result in legal fuckery that you do not intend. 2. It prevents enforcement of patents surrounding code you have contributed against my employer. 3. It indemnifies you as the contributor against expectations of support, guarantee, or warranty for your contribution. 4. It commits my employer to maintenance of your contribution once its accepted as long as it is needed in the code-base. 5. It protects my employer from getting in trouble for contributions where the contributor did not have legal license to offer the contribution, because you are asserting that you have such license before offering that contribution. Yes, it allows for re-licensing, but in practice what this means is that some or all of the code may be dual-licensed at some point in the future to assist in integration with other open source software projects. To assert you should never sign a CLA seems short-sighted and unreasonable. I can't speak for every project, but my employer has been a good steward of software in the community and the community itself since the day it was founded and has committed to continuing to do so. While I can certainly understand that you may not wish to sign a CLA with an organization you do not trust, I don't think refusal to sign should be a default position. Instead, like any contract, you should read before you sign and not enter into agreements with entities you do not trust. Simple as that.