3 ms·
Let's replace a project that failed because of a CLA with another project that requires a CLA
by bcye 3y ago
Let's replace a project that failed because of a CLA with another project that requires a CLA
- BartjeD 3y agoGarnet is MIT licensed. See: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet https://github.com/microsoft/garnet
- bcye 3y agoAnd requires a CLA, see the same link
- dindresto 3y agoI think the point BartjeD wants to make is that due to the nature of MIT licensing, they could run away with your contributions anyway, even without a CLA. Furthermore, Redis didn't have a CLA if I remember correctly and the relicensing is solely based on the what the previously used BSD license allows.
- bcye 3y agoInteresting, I thought the point of not wanting CLAs was not giving them the ability to relicense your code under a more restrictive license (i.e. SSPL), not to keep them from running away with it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mort96 3y agoIs that true? If I contribute to a MIT-licensed project without a CLA, my contributions can't just be re-licensed to some proprietary license, can it? Wouldn't my contributions remain MIT, even if they re-license all other parts of the project to some proprietary license? Isn't the point of CLAs that you can re-license contributors' contributions?
- paulryanrogers 3y agoMIT and BSD are so liberal that anyone can commercialize the work. All they have to do is attribute your parts to you, and not demand a warranty of you.
- mort96 3y agoWhy do corporate MIT-licensed projects have CLAs then? (That's not meant a gotcha, I just don't really know how this stuff works)
- paulryanrogers 3y agoCLAs in those cases may be more to cover their ass in case of disputes about authorship, the future of the project, or in case they forget attribution.