10 ms·

I am fine with SSPL and AGPL as long as there is no CLA which makes me sign me rights over to someone else. I have never contributed to a project with a CLA and

by jeltz 3y ago

I am fine with SSPL and AGPL as long as there is no CLA which makes me sign me rights over to someone else. I have never contributed to a project with a CLA and unless an employer pays me for it I do not think I ever will.

elric 3y ago
I certainly won't sign CLAs to entities like IBM (Eclipse/RHEL) or Oracle. But I did willingly sign a CLA for the Apache Software Foundation. I didn't enjoy doing it, but at least they're a force for good.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aragilar 3y ago
  But Apache I believe specifically is bound to offer code under the Apache licence?
- ShaneCurcuru 3y ago
  If you simply believe "CLAs are bad", you're missing the point (unless you refuse all legal documents on principle, or something). The question is: WHO are you signing the CLA over to? If it's a for-profit company, well, then do you trust that company to follow through? If it's a non-profit, then look to see (in the US) if they're a 501(c)(3) public charity, which have legal restrictions on their governance, which typically require serving some larger public good. Also look at their history of past governance. I certainly hope (as an ASF peep) that we've shown who we are to be who we plan to be in the future; namely producing software for the public good. Key reasons the ASF uses a CLA are protecting the org from future IP issues, and partly simply to be able to fix some future typo or legal issue in our license if one ever comes up. But the ASF will always provide all of it's released software under a similar style permissive license to Apache-2.0, as long as the organization is around. If they're a 501(c)(6), then they're a business league, and might act more like a for-profit corporation, so...
  - elric 3y ago
    It's important to remember that FOSS contributions are on a voluntary basis. When I have to sign paperwork, things start to feel like unpaid work. Signing legal documents requires disclosure of personal information. Most CLAs require full legal names and often the names of employers. While Elric is my legal name, I prefer not to disclose my last name for a variety of reasons. Being able to commit to FOSS on a pseudonymous basis is impossible when CLAs are involved, which I think is a real shame. I understand that orgs want to protect themselves, but CLAs only protect orgs, and can potentially harm contributors. Now, I happen to trust the ASF, and I hope my personal information is safe with them.
    - anticensor 3y ago
      > Being able to commit to FOSS on a pseudonymous basis is impossible when CLAs are involved, which I think is a real shame. There is a solution to that in many jurisdictions: register your pseudonym as an "alternate name".
      - klardotsh 3y ago
        Which defeats the purpose, because then your pseudonym is legally tied to your IRL identity in a way that may, depending on jurisdiction, be public or semi-public record.
      - elric 3y ago
        There are, roughly speaking, two types of countries when it comes to names. One kind (like the UK) where you decide on your name and the government has to comply with it (after minimal paperwork and minimal expense). And the other kind (where I live) where your name is more or less set in stone after your birth, where it is subject to the whims of the approving official, where it is difficult and expensive to change at best, and sometimes impossible to change. I'll refrain from going off on a naming tangent, but that stuff is wild.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    > the ASF will always provide all of it's released software under a similar style permissive license to Apache-2.0, as long as the organization is around. What makes you think that? What stops a few "evil" people from getting on the board and changing the mission in some way and then changing the license so that it is no longer permissive? I've never been clear on what stops the above attack. Many people have setup foundations on their death that are now promoting things the person was clearly against in their life. Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a dream" speech is now property of his heirs who milk that copyright for all the dollars they can get - I believe this is not what he would have wanted. There are plenty of other examples.
jimjag 3y ago
Not all CLAs are the same... for example, the CLA from the ASF is NOT a copyright assignment. Other CLAs _are_.
- jeltz 3y ago
  Ok, that is a very valid point. It is CLAs with copy right assignments I am opposed to.
orthoxerox 3y ago
That's exactly my viewpoint: SSPL + no CLA: we don't want anyone to profit from the hard work of our volunteer contributors SSPL + CLA: we don't want anyone but us to profit from the hard work of our volunteer contributors If you want to dual-license your software, dual-license it from the people that helped write it, or treat their contributions as work-for-hire from the very beginning

by jeltz 3y ago

elric 3y ago

I certainly won't sign CLAs to entities like IBM (Eclipse/RHEL) or Oracle. But I did willingly sign a CLA for the Apache Software Foundation. I didn't enjoy doing it, but at least they're a force for good.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aragilar 3y ago
But Apache I believe specifically is bound to offer code under the Apache licence?
ShaneCurcuru 3y ago
If you simply believe "CLAs are bad", you're missing the point (unless you refuse all legal documents on principle, or something). The question is: WHO are you signing the CLA over to? If it's a for-profit company, well, then do you trust that company to follow through? If it's a non-profit, then look to see (in the US) if they're a 501(c)(3) public charity, which have legal restrictions on their governance, which typically require serving some larger public good. Also look at their history of past governance. I certainly hope (as an ASF peep) that we've shown who we are to be who we plan to be in the future; namely producing software for the public good. Key reasons the ASF uses a CLA are protecting the org from future IP issues, and partly simply to be able to fix some future typo or legal issue in our license if one ever comes up. But the ASF will always provide all of it's released software under a similar style permissive license to Apache-2.0, as long as the organization is around. If they're a 501(c)(6), then they're a business league, and might act more like a for-profit corporation, so...
- elric 3y ago
  It's important to remember that FOSS contributions are on a voluntary basis. When I have to sign paperwork, things start to feel like unpaid work. Signing legal documents requires disclosure of personal information. Most CLAs require full legal names and often the names of employers. While Elric is my legal name, I prefer not to disclose my last name for a variety of reasons. Being able to commit to FOSS on a pseudonymous basis is impossible when CLAs are involved, which I think is a real shame. I understand that orgs want to protect themselves, but CLAs only protect orgs, and can potentially harm contributors. Now, I happen to trust the ASF, and I hope my personal information is safe with them.
  - anticensor 3y ago
    > Being able to commit to FOSS on a pseudonymous basis is impossible when CLAs are involved, which I think is a real shame. There is a solution to that in many jurisdictions: register your pseudonym as an "alternate name".
    - klardotsh 3y ago
      Which defeats the purpose, because then your pseudonym is legally tied to your IRL identity in a way that may, depending on jurisdiction, be public or semi-public record.
    - elric 3y ago
      There are, roughly speaking, two types of countries when it comes to names. One kind (like the UK) where you decide on your name and the government has to comply with it (after minimal paperwork and minimal expense). And the other kind (where I live) where your name is more or less set in stone after your birth, where it is subject to the whims of the approving official, where it is difficult and expensive to change at best, and sometimes impossible to change. I'll refrain from going off on a naming tangent, but that stuff is wild.
- bluGill 3y ago
  > the ASF will always provide all of it's released software under a similar style permissive license to Apache-2.0, as long as the organization is around. What makes you think that? What stops a few "evil" people from getting on the board and changing the mission in some way and then changing the license so that it is no longer permissive? I've never been clear on what stops the above attack. Many people have setup foundations on their death that are now promoting things the person was clearly against in their life. Martin Luther King Jr's "I have a dream" speech is now property of his heirs who milk that copyright for all the dollars they can get - I believe this is not what he would have wanted. There are plenty of other examples.

jimjag 3y ago

Not all CLAs are the same... for example, the CLA from the ASF is NOT a copyright assignment. Other CLAs _are_.

jeltz 3y ago
Ok, that is a very valid point. It is CLAs with copy right assignments I am opposed to.

orthoxerox 3y ago

That's exactly my viewpoint: SSPL + no CLA: we don't want anyone to profit from the hard work of our volunteer contributors SSPL + CLA: we don't want anyone but us to profit from the hard work of our volunteer contributors If you want to dual-license your software, dual-license it from the people that helped write it, or treat their contributions as work-for-hire from the very beginning