4 ms·

The advice to have a CLA seems mostly valuable if you want to cash in on the work of an open source community while refusing to honour the intent of their contr

by rodgerd 12y ago

The advice to have a CLA seems mostly valuable if you want to cash in on the work of an open source community while refusing to honour the intent of their contributions, based on this story.

spindritf 12y ago
It's also important when you want to make any changes without tracking down everyone who ever contributed.
- coldpie 12y ago
  Not really. If your changes aren't controversial, you don't really need to get permission. Arguably some developer could demand their contributions are reverted, or sue, or whatever, but for all practical purposes no one will care enough. Having an agreement isn't a no-cost option, it adds another barrier to contribution to a project.
  - Argorak 12y ago
    Controversy isn't part of the equation here. You change from license A to license B to your project without asking permission of those that contributed under license A. Some party uses the code under B and violates B, but not A. Their attorney argues that you didn't have permission to re-license from all contributors, so the switch wasn't possible. You try to contact all developers that committed under A. Sadly, one of them died a year ago. To add a problem, that person lived in a legislation where you cannot give away authorship. Suddenly, you are in a legal mess. You can choose to follow through or drop the case.
    - forgottenpass 12y ago
      spindritf said "make any changes" coldpie seemed to assume s/he meant "any changes", not "any changes to the license"
      - Argorak 12y ago
        But the initial part of the thread is about a CLA and a CLA covers the licensing part of the business.
forgottenpass 12y ago
It's simple but easy to overlook when buried in all the other open-source pleasantries, CLAs exist explicitly for the purpose of changing the ownership of an open source project. Aside from the few token counter examples (most of which presuppose the FSF or poison pill clauses), there is almost no possible way to exercise that power in a way that benefits the project's contributors or users.

by rodgerd 12y ago

The advice to have a CLA seems mostly valuable if you want to cash in on the work of an open source community while refusing to honour the intent of their contributions, based on this story.

spindritf 12y ago

It's also important when you want to make any changes without tracking down everyone who ever contributed.

coldpie 12y ago
Not really. If your changes aren't controversial, you don't really need to get permission. Arguably some developer could demand their contributions are reverted, or sue, or whatever, but for all practical purposes no one will care enough. Having an agreement isn't a no-cost option, it adds another barrier to contribution to a project.
- Argorak 12y ago
  Controversy isn't part of the equation here. You change from license A to license B to your project without asking permission of those that contributed under license A. Some party uses the code under B and violates B, but not A. Their attorney argues that you didn't have permission to re-license from all contributors, so the switch wasn't possible. You try to contact all developers that committed under A. Sadly, one of them died a year ago. To add a problem, that person lived in a legislation where you cannot give away authorship. Suddenly, you are in a legal mess. You can choose to follow through or drop the case.
  - forgottenpass 12y ago
    spindritf said "make any changes" coldpie seemed to assume s/he meant "any changes", not "any changes to the license"
    - Argorak 12y ago
      But the initial part of the thread is about a CLA and a CLA covers the licensing part of the business.

forgottenpass 12y ago

It's simple but easy to overlook when buried in all the other open-source pleasantries, CLAs exist explicitly for the purpose of changing the ownership of an open source project. Aside from the few token counter examples (most of which presuppose the FSF or poison pill clauses), there is almost no possible way to exercise that power in a way that benefits the project's contributors or users.