Christ. Talk about impassioned language. “Demanding”? Not “asking for”? That’s fine, it’s perhaps a bit ambiguous. Not “requiring”? But, “demanding”? If you’re

Christ. Talk about impassioned language. “Demanding”? Not “asking for”? That’s fine, it’s perhaps a bit ambiguous. Not “requiring”? But, “demanding”? If you’re contributing to big open source projects with any regularity, you surely know what a CLA is already. This is hardly new. Just off the top of my head, Django has a CLA: https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/cla/ https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/cla/. This just feels like drive-by outrage. It’s completely in line with societal expectations that the maintaining entity of an open-source project can set the terms by which contributions are accepted. Its presentation as a “legal agreement” is just an agreement that actually stands a chance if it went to court. It’s their project, and since you haven’t contributed to it, it’s by absolutely no definition “yours”. You’re free to not contribute. You’re presumably free to fork it. If you see an open source project that’s badged as…say…MIT but that has a CLA, take that that into consideration when deciding whether or not to contribute? Is this really worth a thread? The usual Open Source / Free Software puritans will have the usual puritan arguments about this. I really don’t care that much. I put these arguments in the same bucket as arguments from people that claim that something isn’t “Agile” or “Scrum”. There’s more than enough room for different people and organisations to choose different terms for licensing their software. It’s not weird or creepy or deceptive.