4 ms·

Regarding Pull Requests, this is quite important if and when you want to change licenses, or dual license. Make sure you have on file release forms for every c

Regarding Pull Requests, this is quite important if and when you want to change licenses, or dual license. Make sure you have on file release forms for every copyright holder who submits code that grant you permission to relicense later on. For one line bug fixes it can be a pain, but it's worth it. One problem with this though is that it places an unfair advantage with the current maintainer. A fork of the project wouldn't inherit the relicensing permissions from all the contributors.

icebraining 13y ago
Ugh, why? You're just discouraging people from contributing by forcing them to accept that their code might be used in a matter they don't approve of in the future.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  Because it prevents a choice of more liberal licensing later. Ogre3D was able to successfully transition from LGPL to MID/BSD because of contributor agreements. The Apache Software Foundation, Free Software Foundation, and others all require contributor agreements for very good reasons. If your projects starts out with very liberal licensing, it's not necessary strictly speaking (unless you're concerned about patents). But that's the tradeoff.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Yeah, but the Apache Foundation already has a permissive license, and nobody expects the FSF to re-license a project, except maybe to a new version of the same. By choosing the (A)GPL but forcing contributors to grant relicensing rights, you've excluded both those who consider copyleft licenses non-free, and those who consider copyleft licensing an important requirement.
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      Did you miss the part where I mentioned patent agreements which is another good reason why Contributor Agreements are important? And while the Apache Foundation already has a "permissive license" it's not quite as permissive as BSD / etc. And if the Apache Foundation wants to relicense, to say, a future version of their license, they're still going to potentially need that contributor agreement. Again, as I said before, there are tradeoffs.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    It might also discourage contributors who don't want a transition to a different license. After all, contributor agreements also give the power to go closed source later on.
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      Like I said, tradeoffs. LLVM for example doesn't require copyright assignment, but does require a contributor agreement for patent purposes for significant contributions. Contributor agreements are a necessary mechanism to protect the project and ensure its future when dealing with patents or preparing for the potential of relicensing.

icebraining 13y ago

Ugh, why? You're just discouraging people from contributing by forcing them to accept that their code might be used in a matter they don't approve of in the future.

binarycrusader 13y ago
Because it prevents a choice of more liberal licensing later. Ogre3D was able to successfully transition from LGPL to MID/BSD because of contributor agreements. The Apache Software Foundation, Free Software Foundation, and others all require contributor agreements for very good reasons. If your projects starts out with very liberal licensing, it's not necessary strictly speaking (unless you're concerned about patents). But that's the tradeoff.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Yeah, but the Apache Foundation already has a permissive license, and nobody expects the FSF to re-license a project, except maybe to a new version of the same. By choosing the (A)GPL but forcing contributors to grant relicensing rights, you've excluded both those who consider copyleft licenses non-free, and those who consider copyleft licensing an important requirement.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    Did you miss the part where I mentioned patent agreements which is another good reason why Contributor Agreements are important? And while the Apache Foundation already has a "permissive license" it's not quite as permissive as BSD / etc. And if the Apache Foundation wants to relicense, to say, a future version of their license, they're still going to potentially need that contributor agreement. Again, as I said before, there are tradeoffs.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  It might also discourage contributors who don't want a transition to a different license. After all, contributor agreements also give the power to go closed source later on.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    Like I said, tradeoffs. LLVM for example doesn't require copyright assignment, but does require a contributor agreement for patent purposes for significant contributions. Contributor agreements are a necessary mechanism to protect the project and ensure its future when dealing with patents or preparing for the potential of relicensing.