7 ms·

Would you sign a CLA if it specified the License your code would be able to the project under? (I.e. the project can only use your code if it says MIT or BSD or

Would you sign a CLA if it specified the License your code would be able to the project under? (I.e. the project can only use your code if it says MIT or BSD or GPL licensed). CLAs can have a legitimate purpose in clarifying copyright ownerships.

palata 2y ago
> Would you sign a CLA if it specified the License your code would be able to the project under? I don't understand. > CLAs can have a legitimate purpose in clarifying copyright ownerships. Isn't that the whole point of a CLA? The CLA is usually a way for the contributor to renounce their copyright. In other words, the project asks me to make a contribution for free, and on top of that they want to own the copyright for it. If they want to own the copyright for my work, how about they pay me?
- bluGill 2y ago
  i'm fine with my company owning copyright on code I write. Sometimes they let me keep copyright on things I contribute to open source on their time but I get permission before I do that. (they are considering changing the rules such that they retain the copyright and then I would contribute back in their name not my own)
  - palata 2y ago
    > i'm fine with my company owning copyright on code I write Sure, but that's not a CLA. You have a contract, and your company buys your work. If you contribute for free to a random project and they ask you to sign a CLA, they are not paying you for your work. They just want your work + your copyright for free.
    - KPGv2 2y ago
      A CLA doesn't give them your copyright; you still own it, and you're licensing it (hence the "L" in "CLA") to them. And, at least under US law, non-remunerative license agreements can be revoked under certain situations (usually having to do with that free work being turned into profit for the licensor IIRC although I admittedly haven't thought about this aspect of copyright law in twenty years)
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  > If they want to own the copyright for my work, how about they pay me? If you want to merge your code into someone else's repository, thereby benefiting from their continued maintenance efforts, how about you give them the copyright? You don't have to if you don't want to. You can keep your copyright by merging your improvements into your own fork and maintaining it yourself. It is within your power. Seems like a fair deal to me. Everyone gets a nice AGPLv3 project to hack on. That's freedom and it is assured. If you want someone else to maintain that project for you the least you can do is give them control over it by assigning copyright. It's still AGPLv3 for everyone else, and it gives the maintainers the leverage needed to negotiate deals with corporations. Companies paying for exceptions to the GPL is something even Stallman promotes. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html This is a good thing and strengthens free software. Being against this is a position so extreme that even Stallman rejects it. And it can't be done if you need the consent of every single contributor. I even emailed Stallman directly to confirm the ethics of this. He says it's better this way because only the copyright owner can do it. Permissive licenses give everyone that power. Copyleft keeps it contained. > It is my understanding that as the copyright holders > they have the right to do it without any problems. > They leverage the AGPLv3 to make it harder for their > competitors to use the code to compete against them. I see what you mean. The original developer can engage in a practice that blocks coopertation. By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL, would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice. In a perverse sense that could seem more fair, but I think it is also more harmful. On balance, using the AGPL is better.
  - KPGv2 2y ago
    > how about you give them the copyright under US law, this is an impossibility. Under a CLA, you retain your copyright, and you (typically) give someone else a perpetual, irrevocable license to use your copyrighted material in their own product.
    - KPGv2 2y ago
      to clarify, it's an impossibility to give it to them irrevocably as under US law you can reclaim a copyright that's been transferred to another party after a statutorily defined period of time
- KPGv2 2y ago
  > The CLA is usually a way for the contributor to renounce their copyright I don't know about other countries, but you actually cannot renounce your copyright under American law. It is an impossibility. The only way your own code can belong irrevocably to someone else is if you are contracted under a work-for-hire arrangement or if you are an employee of the other entity when you produce the work. (Or if you die and your heirs become the new owners) If you were to write code and then later submit it to a project (say, via PR), they cannot retroactively implement a work-for-hire arrangement. In all other cases, the creator is the copyright owner forever. That status cannot be assigned to anyone else. (Except to one's heirs upon death.) A CLA is a licensing agreement (that's the "LA" part!), where you license your own copyrighted material to another entity, and it's often in perpetuity. But here's the trick: under US law, an author or author's heirs (i.e., copyright holders in non-WFH situations) can revoke a license in certain situations. The provisions allowing this exist specifically so that non-remunerative licenses (i.e., ones the copyright owner didn't get paid to license) can be revoked. You can read about some of these termination provisions in 17 USC 203, 304(c), and 304(d).
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    Copyright can be transferred in the US. I think you are confused from copyright can’t be destroyed to put work public domain.
    - thfuran 2y ago
      Indeed they can https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html
    - KPGv2 2y ago
      I never said you cannot transfer copyright. I said you cannot irrevocably give it up. And this is true: under US law, after 35 years you can reclaim your copyright
      - nulbyte 2y ago
        Taking the most sensible meaning of renounce, the court in Micro Star v. Formgen opined exactly the opposite of what you claim: "It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned." https://casetext.com/case/micro-star-v-formgen-inc https://casetext.com/case/micro-star-v-formgen-inc As for reclaiming a transferred copyright, it's possible, but complicated. It also takes at least 35 years, which is likely too long to be of practical use to most folks.
bluGill 2y ago
That is dangerious. While unlikely there are a few possible attachs. If the law changes such that the license is invalid you need to change to an up dated versian. if you allow them to change the license for that case they can change the license to anything. Consult with a lawyer to see if there is legal language that allows them to change the license as needed only so long as it meets the intent... note that intent is tricky. GPL 2 and 3 do not have the same intent according to Linus Torvalds but Richard Stallmen will say they do. good luck getting you contract to allow license changes if the intent is the same and having it really be your intent. the above all seems unlikely but you cannot discount it. which is another reason to not sign a CLA - you have no idea what future changes you might agree with.
- mcny 2y ago
  Can you please share why it is dangerous? If I release some code that I wrote myself, I own this code so I can always re release it in another strongly copy left license if there is a defect in AGPL v3 or whatever.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    If you sign a CLA you no longer own that code. Thus you trust who ever now owns the code to make decisions you agree with but have no way to assure that. depending on the terms you may own the code but it isn't a useful right as without everyone else including them you can't use your right to get a good license in place (one they disagree with so of course they won't)
    - Benjamin_Dobell 2y ago
      I see you've repeated this in a few comments. Do you have a link? By the way, I'm not disagreeing. I'm Australian and curious about the US situation. My understanding was that whilst you can't assign copyright — insofar as you ought to always be able refer to yourself as the original author — you can provide an irrevocable license giving someone else the rights to reproduce, license and sublicense as they see fit.
makemyworkforme 2y ago
How do you need CLAs to clarify copyright ownership? DCoE does the job equally well.

palata 2y ago

> Would you sign a CLA if it specified the License your code would be able to the project under? I don't understand. > CLAs can have a legitimate purpose in clarifying copyright ownerships. Isn't that the whole point of a CLA? The CLA is usually a way for the contributor to renounce their copyright. In other words, the project asks me to make a contribution for free, and on top of that they want to own the copyright for it. If they want to own the copyright for my work, how about they pay me?

bluGill 2y ago
i'm fine with my company owning copyright on code I write. Sometimes they let me keep copyright on things I contribute to open source on their time but I get permission before I do that. (they are considering changing the rules such that they retain the copyright and then I would contribute back in their name not my own)
- palata 2y ago
  > i'm fine with my company owning copyright on code I write Sure, but that's not a CLA. You have a contract, and your company buys your work. If you contribute for free to a random project and they ask you to sign a CLA, they are not paying you for your work. They just want your work + your copyright for free.
  - KPGv2 2y ago
    A CLA doesn't give them your copyright; you still own it, and you're licensing it (hence the "L" in "CLA") to them. And, at least under US law, non-remunerative license agreements can be revoked under certain situations (usually having to do with that free work being turned into profit for the licensor IIRC although I admittedly haven't thought about this aspect of copyright law in twenty years)
matheusmoreira 2y ago
> If they want to own the copyright for my work, how about they pay me? If you want to merge your code into someone else's repository, thereby benefiting from their continued maintenance efforts, how about you give them the copyright? You don't have to if you don't want to. You can keep your copyright by merging your improvements into your own fork and maintaining it yourself. It is within your power. Seems like a fair deal to me. Everyone gets a nice AGPLv3 project to hack on. That's freedom and it is assured. If you want someone else to maintain that project for you the least you can do is give them control over it by assigning copyright. It's still AGPLv3 for everyone else, and it gives the maintainers the leverage needed to negotiate deals with corporations. Companies paying for exceptions to the GPL is something even Stallman promotes. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html This is a good thing and strengthens free software. Being against this is a position so extreme that even Stallman rejects it. And it can't be done if you need the consent of every single contributor. I even emailed Stallman directly to confirm the ethics of this. He says it's better this way because only the copyright owner can do it. Permissive licenses give everyone that power. Copyleft keeps it contained. > It is my understanding that as the copyright holders > they have the right to do it without any problems. > They leverage the AGPLv3 to make it harder for their > competitors to use the code to compete against them. I see what you mean. The original developer can engage in a practice that blocks coopertation. By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL, would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice. In a perverse sense that could seem more fair, but I think it is also more harmful. On balance, using the AGPL is better.
- KPGv2 2y ago
  > how about you give them the copyright under US law, this is an impossibility. Under a CLA, you retain your copyright, and you (typically) give someone else a perpetual, irrevocable license to use your copyrighted material in their own product.
  - KPGv2 2y ago
    to clarify, it's an impossibility to give it to them irrevocably as under US law you can reclaim a copyright that's been transferred to another party after a statutorily defined period of time
KPGv2 2y ago
> The CLA is usually a way for the contributor to renounce their copyright I don't know about other countries, but you actually cannot renounce your copyright under American law. It is an impossibility. The only way your own code can belong irrevocably to someone else is if you are contracted under a work-for-hire arrangement or if you are an employee of the other entity when you produce the work. (Or if you die and your heirs become the new owners) If you were to write code and then later submit it to a project (say, via PR), they cannot retroactively implement a work-for-hire arrangement. In all other cases, the creator is the copyright owner forever. That status cannot be assigned to anyone else. (Except to one's heirs upon death.) A CLA is a licensing agreement (that's the "LA" part!), where you license your own copyrighted material to another entity, and it's often in perpetuity. But here's the trick: under US law, an author or author's heirs (i.e., copyright holders in non-WFH situations) can revoke a license in certain situations. The provisions allowing this exist specifically so that non-remunerative licenses (i.e., ones the copyright owner didn't get paid to license) can be revoked. You can read about some of these termination provisions in 17 USC 203, 304(c), and 304(d).
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Copyright can be transferred in the US. I think you are confused from copyright can’t be destroyed to put work public domain.
  - thfuran 2y ago
    Indeed they can https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html
  - KPGv2 2y ago
    I never said you cannot transfer copyright. I said you cannot irrevocably give it up. And this is true: under US law, after 35 years you can reclaim your copyright
    - nulbyte 2y ago
      Taking the most sensible meaning of renounce, the court in Micro Star v. Formgen opined exactly the opposite of what you claim: "It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned." https://casetext.com/case/micro-star-v-formgen-inc https://casetext.com/case/micro-star-v-formgen-inc As for reclaiming a transferred copyright, it's possible, but complicated. It also takes at least 35 years, which is likely too long to be of practical use to most folks.

bluGill 2y ago

That is dangerious. While unlikely there are a few possible attachs. If the law changes such that the license is invalid you need to change to an up dated versian. if you allow them to change the license for that case they can change the license to anything. Consult with a lawyer to see if there is legal language that allows them to change the license as needed only so long as it meets the intent... note that intent is tricky. GPL 2 and 3 do not have the same intent according to Linus Torvalds but Richard Stallmen will say they do. good luck getting you contract to allow license changes if the intent is the same and having it really be your intent. the above all seems unlikely but you cannot discount it. which is another reason to not sign a CLA - you have no idea what future changes you might agree with.

mcny 2y ago
Can you please share why it is dangerous? If I release some code that I wrote myself, I own this code so I can always re release it in another strongly copy left license if there is a defect in AGPL v3 or whatever.
- bluGill 2y ago
  If you sign a CLA you no longer own that code. Thus you trust who ever now owns the code to make decisions you agree with but have no way to assure that. depending on the terms you may own the code but it isn't a useful right as without everyone else including them you can't use your right to get a good license in place (one they disagree with so of course they won't)
  - Benjamin_Dobell 2y ago
    I see you've repeated this in a few comments. Do you have a link? By the way, I'm not disagreeing. I'm Australian and curious about the US situation. My understanding was that whilst you can't assign copyright — insofar as you ought to always be able refer to yourself as the original author — you can provide an irrevocable license giving someone else the rights to reproduce, license and sublicense as they see fit.

makemyworkforme 2y ago

How do you need CLAs to clarify copyright ownership? DCoE does the job equally well.