Why Your Project Doesn't Need a Contributor Licensing Agreement
Software Freedom Conservancy at
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Douglas Perkins, Greg Grossmeier, Mike Linksvayer and 3 others likes this.
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Bradley M. Kuhn shared this.
Very nice post. I also enjoyed https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAndItsCLA found via https://identi.ca/bkuhn/note/Iw0qU6M8QducJtTCpYCLVg
I did find this amusing:
Surely that's what public licenses look like to many upon encounter. Yes they're necessary, but I have empathy for "POSS".
I'm also ever so slightly amused by the modified DCO's mentioned. Not sure any comply with the licenses DCO once offered under, and still don't understand why the copy at http://developercertificate.org/ is handcuffed. But I'm happy to see licenses being ignored here, as Fontana has declared that lawyers operate in a license-free public domain commons, and I agree with him on everything, or at the very least hope he is correct on this.
Finally, but what if I want to do proprietary relicensing!? ;-)
I did find this amusing:
"require the first interaction between a FLOSS project and a new contributor to involve a complex legal negotiation and a formal legal agreement"
Surely that's what public licenses look like to many upon encounter. Yes they're necessary, but I have empathy for "POSS".
I'm also ever so slightly amused by the modified DCO's mentioned. Not sure any comply with the licenses DCO once offered under, and still don't understand why the copy at http://developercertificate.org/ is handcuffed. But I'm happy to see licenses being ignored here, as Fontana has declared that lawyers operate in a license-free public domain commons, and I agree with him on everything, or at the very least hope he is correct on this.
Finally, but what if I want to do proprietary relicensing!? ;-)