4 ms·
it's because contributor work is under it's own copyright, per individual. This is a huge legal (bureaucratic) issue and thus the CLA is meant to normalize a
by novaleaf 14y ago
it's because contributor work is under it's own copyright, per individual. This is a huge legal (bureaucratic) issue and thus the CLA is meant to normalize all contributions to fall under the MIT.
also I know this is getting into inflammable territory but the GPL (v3 especially) is a very big turn off to adoption for a lot of for-profit companies due to worries that if they use the GPL code, their product and all derivative works are "tainted" (need to provide 'free' source access)
Thus I can see the removal of GPL as being a clarifying factor, as lots of companies dual license GPL and a proprietary license, which may lead to misunderstanding in this case.
- jeltz 14y agoI have no problem at all with the dropping of GPL. Dropping GPL may stop any worries that jQuery at some point in the future will drop MIT in favor of GPL (though they still could do that since MIT is GPL compatible). The license itself is what normalizes the copyrights, so a CLA is just additional bureaucracy. The contributors to jQuery have already all agreed to contribute their code under MIT, so why would they need to do it again?