News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Seriously, Don't Sign a CLA. Parent comment

Re:Seriously, Don't Sign a CLA by driminicus on Tuesday July 04, 2023 @02:51PM (#36591069)
> In this way, I will be legally able to loosen the license over time if I so wish. Without CLA's for customers, I couldn't do that.

Or you can make it poprietary, which is the exact reason I would not want to sign a CLA with you, because I want a guarantee that my contribution remains foss.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seriously, Don't Sign a CLA by gavinhoward on Tuesday July 04, 2023 @02:55PM (#36591114)
True.

But again, I don't take contributions from individuals, so I wouldn't ask you to sign one anyway.

This means that if I take it proprietary, I will have ensured I do not steal from any contributors.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seriously, Don't Sign a CLA by omniglottal on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @11:36AM (#36601890)
You will not have stolen in the same way that Google/FB don't "steal" your data. Instead, the end user is simply forced into the position to give away their IP to you, where you can adjust the licensing per your whims, even to sell it back to them. It's fine to consider your lack of contributors is related to the "no individual" contributors" choice that you have made, but it would be disingenuous to avoid recognition of how your choices probably result more in "no contributors".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Seriously, Don't Sign a CLA by gavinhoward on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @12:38PM (#36602922)
Individual end users will not be contributors.

Businesses will be contributors. These businesses have more "power" than me because they'll be bigger than my one-man shop.

I'll do these CLA's to adjust that power balance.

[ Parent | on HN ]