4 ms·

I thought contributions-relicensing has to do with a CLA, or lack thereof, and not the project license per se. Happy to learn I’m wrong on that point, which sec

I thought contributions-relicensing has to do with a CLA, or lack thereof, and not the project license per se. Happy to learn I’m wrong on that point, which sections of A/GPL cover that? EDIT: having thought about it again, I realized that I was bringing strong assumptions about a CLA being in effect, regardless of the specific license. So, without a CLA in consideration, relicensing is more viable (or more of a danger depending on your specific concerns) with MIT. If a CLA is in play then MIT and A/GPL are likely on equal footing, depending on the jurisdiction.

gkbrk 2y ago
CLA doesn't matter too much. If you want to contribute to an open-source project, you can just work on your own repo and can work together with other people just like it was a real open-source project. The good part is, you can pull any improvements from the original repo that they publish under A/GPL, but they can't pull from you if they want to re-license their code later. So the community fork will always be ahead in features and bug fixes compared to the CLA-crippled repo.