3 ms·

The other option is to use CLAs to try to allow only specific re-licensings. The Harmony CA [1] that states: We agree to license the Contribution only under th

The other option is to use CLAs to try to allow only specific re-licensings. The Harmony CA [1] that states: We agree to license the Contribution only under the terms of the license or licences which We are using on the Submission Date for the Work in which the Contribution is included or the following additional licenses ... This would let the company re-license to selected other open source licenses for compatibility/strategy, etc, but not allow BSL, etc [1] https://harmonyagreements.org/comments https://harmonyagreements.org/comments

pessimizer 3y ago
It could only restrict that company, though. Anyone else in the world could relicense open source code under any license that is more restrictive than the original. Any of their employees could start a company, and turn the product completely proprietary (as long as they adhere to whatever attribution clauses are in the open source license.) The point of open source is to allow people (giant corporations) to take the code and do whatever they want with it.
- gregwebs 3y ago
  There must be some misunderstanding about re-licensing. That can only be done for code one has the copyright for. A CLA/CA assigns or grants copyright or grants the ability to perform actions on behalf of the copyright holder. So "that company" controls copyright and can relicense. Other parties cannot relicense because they don't control copyright. Depending on the license, a party without copyright may be able to create a derived work that incorporates the original. The derived work may have a different license as long as the incorporation satisfies the original license. This is what people normally think of as using open source licensed code, and it does not include re-licensing code.