4 ms·

How about because your changes won't be merged if you don't?

• wmf 4y ago
  I guess you could go one level back and not make changes if there's going to be a CLA for them.
  • sanxiyn 4y ago
    Merging a bug fix upstream relieves you of burden of maintaining it. It is good for both party, not just for upstream. I think signing corporate CLA, if required to merge, is quite reasonable in this case.
    • jabl 4y ago
      > It is good for both party, not just for upstream. Indeed. Maybe, then, it's the corporations who should have a think about requiring a CLA?
      • thriftwy 4y ago
        Their business model may rely on dual licensing, whereas fixes coming from you are "nice to have"
  • Aachen 4y ago
    That's me! At least, I read the CLA and when it contains things like "please sign away rights that the law specifically made unwaivable like moral rights to your work", that's me not contributing.
• rodgerd 4y ago
  Sometimes that works for the CLA holder, sometimes it doesn't. As the FSF discovered when they tried to force the issue for gcc.