3 ms·
I like CLAs. If there's an open source project that I love/depend on, I will most likely want to be able to contribute to it for my own personal reasons at some
by bogwog 3y ago
I like CLAs. If there's an open source project that I love/depend on, I will most likely want to be able to contribute to it for my own personal reasons at some point (e.g. fix a bug that bothers me or add a feature I want).
I am a Sublime Text addict, but hate how slow development is and how resistant they are to adding more dev-focused features. I would happily sign a CLA if it meant I could modify the code myself, even if I end up paying to use my own code.
Giving the owner permission to sell my contribution (which is likely very minor compared to the rest of the project) gives me added peace of mind since I know that the project is (or can be) sustainable.
A rug pull is always bad, but it's not fair to assume that that's what will happen (unless you know something we don't).
And besides, even if it does happen, that's what forks are for. This project is licensed with GPL and AGPL.
- drewdevault 3y agoYou do not need to give anyone special permission to sell your contribution, everyone in the world is equally entitled to make commercial use of (including outright sale of) free and open source software; without this it is not free or open source. The only purpose of a CLA like this is to provide for a future where the software can be made non-free again.
- trevyn 3y agoNo. A license to copyrighted code does not confer the same privileges as holding copyright to that code. Public domain is closer to “equally entitled”.
- drewdevault 3y agoAn open source license, by definition, entitles the recipient to commercial use. https://xkcd.com/1731/ https://xkcd.com/1731/
- trevyn 3y agoBut not any commercial use, only that which is covered by the license. Whereas the copyright holder has broader rights. So a licensed user is not “equally entitled”.