5 ms·
It's about time we stopped calling projects that require copyright assignments "open-source", because they aren't. Regardless of license.
by CrLf 3y ago
It's about time we stopped calling projects that require copyright assignments "open-source", because they aren't. Regardless of license.
- jeltz 3y agoAgreed, and this is why I never have contributed to a project with a CLA.
- lars_francke 3y agoNot even to e.g. something from the Apache Foundation? Or Eclipse? Or CNCF?
- jeltz 3y agoYup! I might make an exception at some point but so far I haven't. I believe that all contributors should be equals and not some have more rights than others. Also I need to research and trust the entity which I sign the CLA with.
- jen20 3y agoThere are two organizations I would consider assigning copyright to for free work: the FSF and the ASF, which are both organizations with noble goals. Certainly not the CNCF.
- kelnos 3y agoAll GNU projects require assigning copyright to the FSF[0]. It feels a little absurd to call a GNU project "not open source". But I would certainly trust the FSF not to change licensing terms (aside from moving to newer versions of the GPL/LGPL) to something unsavory, while the same can't be said of any old random project out there. I think that trust (or lack thereof) is the real issue. Ultimately, though, it's better to just not have to trust; I don't sign over my copyright to projects either, unless it's part of a job and the stuff that I write would otherwise be owned by my employer anyway. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
- CrLf 3y agoThe FSF requires copyright assignment so they can upgrade to newer GPL versions at will. I happen to disagree with that as well.