I don't know about CLAs, but the way the FSF asks for copyright assignment isn't as careless as Eric makes it out to be. The FSF does require a statement from y

I don't know about CLAs, but the way the FSF asks for copyright assignment isn't as careless as Eric makes it out to be. The FSF does require a statement from your employer that you're able to do the copyright assignment. I know of at least one prof whose university wouldn't grant that assignment and therefore the copyright couldn't be transferred. There was no "legal voodoo"; everyone was aware of what needed to happen and understood that it couldn't because the university didn't want it to. Whether the FSF getting copyright assignments is helpful or not, I'm not sure, but it seems that it is: Hellwig's Linux GPL enforcement case against VMWare has so far hinged on him being able to ascertain copyright over the bits of code that VMWare allegedly violated, and last I heard, the court threw out his claims because they decided that git blame logs are not enough proof of his copyright ownership. If all of the Linux devs could collectively enforce copyright over their code as a single legal entity with single ownership, this particular obstacle wouldn't be there. Edit: Just checked. Hellwig decided to no longer appeal. A second court decided to also not hear the case, on "purely procedural grounds", which I think again is about the question of copyright ownership: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/apr/02/vmware-no-appeal/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/apr/02/vmware-no-appeal/ On the other hand, it's good that VMWare has decided to become GPL-compliant anyway. So, yeah, I think the FSF has a good reason to have copyright assignments, to avoid this particular obstacle.