3 ms·

>> If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary [sic, I assume] code. > it's a copyright license, not a copyright assignment

by ColanR 6y ago

>> If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary [sic, I assume] code. > it's a copyright license, not a copyright assignment >> So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. > you're welcome to fork it if you wish, or distribute proprietary, non-open-source versions of the code It sounds like you're agreeing completely with everything the parent said.

mbrukman 6y ago
Sorry for not making it more clear; I was responding to the statement: > Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. The CLA does not change anything about the license, and does not prevent or make it possible (or easier) to make proprietary versions of the software (or your contributions) — all those conditions are in the license itself, the CLA does not override or amend any terms of the license. In other words, you can make the same argument about any Apache, BSD, or MIT software, while the poster is claiming that it's the CLA that enables making future releases proprietary, which is why I pointed out that the Google CLA is the same as the ASF CLA. If the argument is that Apache/BSD/MIT licenses are "not really open" because they allow incorporating them into proprietary software without releasing code, that's a different argument and is really a distinction between the "permissive" licenses like Apache/BSD/MIT and the "copyleft" licenses like GPL, but again, that has nothing to do with the CLA.
- ColanR 6y ago
  That's a very fair point. Thanks for clarifying.
joking 6y ago
The thing is that anyone can make that fork and use the code on a proprietary system, not only google. The same that apple did with the mach kernel and any other one could have done.

by ColanR 6y ago

mbrukman 6y ago

Sorry for not making it more clear; I was responding to the statement: > Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. The CLA does not change anything about the license, and does not prevent or make it possible (or easier) to make proprietary versions of the software (or your contributions) — all those conditions are in the license itself, the CLA does not override or amend any terms of the license. In other words, you can make the same argument about any Apache, BSD, or MIT software, while the poster is claiming that it's the CLA that enables making future releases proprietary, which is why I pointed out that the Google CLA is the same as the ASF CLA. If the argument is that Apache/BSD/MIT licenses are "not really open" because they allow incorporating them into proprietary software without releasing code, that's a different argument and is really a distinction between the "permissive" licenses like Apache/BSD/MIT and the "copyleft" licenses like GPL, but again, that has nothing to do with the CLA.

ColanR 6y ago
That's a very fair point. Thanks for clarifying.

joking 6y ago

The thing is that anyone can make that fork and use the code on a proprietary system, not only google. The same that apple did with the mach kernel and any other one could have done.