2 ms·
What you're talking about is called a CLA, a contributor licensing agreement, and is precisely what the project is boasting they are not doing. This prevents th
by tsimionescu 3y ago
What you're talking about is called a CLA, a contributor licensing agreement, and is precisely what the project is boasting they are not doing. This prevents the company from ever changing the license from AGPL to something else from now on, since they wouldn't own enough of the copyright.
- cxr 3y agoNot quite. The previous commenter was referring to how the FSF handles contributions—copyright assignment—not a CLA. Your conventional CLA doesn't transfer copyright ownership to the upstream project. It just permits them to do a lot more with the contributor's work (including e.g. arbitrarily relicensing) than other recipients/participants get to do, without actually making the original author give up ownership.
- zigzag312 3y agoHypothetically, if 95% of code is from the company and 5% is from community, would it be possible for company to remove commits made by community, reimplement affected parts and move the project from AGPL to closed source?