4 ms·
The AGPL is not the issue. The CLA is. It allows the project to change licenses at will, without going back to all contributors and asking for approval.
by gtirloni 3y ago
The AGPL is not the issue. The CLA is. It allows the project to change licenses at will, without going back to all contributors and asking for approval.
- taway1237 3y agoAh yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. I mean I dislike CLAs personally, but I understand why they can be healthy for a project growth.
- gtirloni 3y agoNo, the issue is not that they are not open source. The issue is the risk to users/contributors. These two things are being conflated in this discussion. One thing is a CLA and copyright/license changes. The other is the license itself.
- ekidd 3y ago> Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. The last time I saw a FSF CLA, it was part of a larger agreement that also imposed obligations on the FSF. In the long run, there may be risks to the FSF holding so many copyrights. But I don't think it clarifies matters to treat the FSF's CLAs the same as ones used by a "open core" VC funded startup.
- gkbrk 3y agoDo you truly see no difference between assigning rights to your own code to a non-profit foundation dedicated to Free Software and assigning rights to your own code to a for-profit company? Especially when the for-profit company openly announces this assignment of rights is for the purpose of selling code you wrote to others without giving back to the authors. The FSF doesn't have a track record of asking for CLAs, and then selling your code to others under different licenses and pocketing the profits.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoIf the Free Software Foundation which was started and is headed by Stallman himself betrays the free software movement, then nothing in this world can be trusted anymore.
- hoseja 3y agoStallman has been browbeaten. For, uhh, being an awkward nerd. Can't have those having influence in our technological world.
- Legogris 3y agoThey would still have to go back to past contributors prior to introducing CLA. Source: My PR was merged in 2021, the changes are still part of Synapse, and I never signed any CLA. I don't think they'd be able to get enough sign-offs from historical contributors to pull off any actual shenanigans with the Synapse license.
- Arkanosis 3y agoI understand that pre-fork code is under the ASL, not the AGPL, so anybody can use it within derivative works under any license — no CLA needed.