I’m not a lawyer at all. What i feel is that the existence of the copyright assignment bot makes this decision worse. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say

I’m not a lawyer at all. What i feel is that the existence of the copyright assignment bot makes this decision worse. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say “you contributed to the project knowing that the project is licensed X, therefore we can assume that you are ok with your contribution being under the same license and we just merge it”. Not saying that it is wise legally, but it feels to be a coherent theory at least. (Again not a lawyer.) But if you have a “copyright-assignment” nagging robot that kinda reveals that you think one needs to jump that extra hoop. After that if you ignore that the robot’s question went unanswered it is harder to argue that you just went with the default assumption. Since if you feel it is worth asking the question that means you did not believe that the implied agreement is enough.