I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bitcoins in advance

Re:I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bi... by ta82828 on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:10PM (#9328846)

A contributor can have legitimate reasons for not wanting their code re-licensed. For example, the Linux kernel deliberately did not move to GPLv3. Would such a contributor be "holding the project up" or would they be rightly demanding that the license under which they contributed code be honored?

Obviously the devil's in the details of the terms of the CLA. I had previously thought the purpose of the CLA was to allow the projects organizers to make copyright claims in court, not to allow them to re-license.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bi... by pyre on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:38PM (#9329028)

My "holding up the project" comment was more in relation to people that make small contributions (e.g. correct spelling mistakes and/or typos), but (maybe?) legally still need to sign off on a relicense. In this case, it really comes across as petty to put up a huge fight.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bi... by icebraining on Monday April 06, 2015 @12:45PM (#9329074)

What huge fight? The guy is just saying that he isn't willing to invest the time in understanding the full implications of the contract he's being asked to sign, and that they can pay him if they want him to bother. At a very reasonable rate, I might add, considering he's a software developer and that carefully reading a CLA might take an hour or more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I will not sign the CLA for less than $100, payable in Bi... by pyre on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @03:55AM (#9332528)

I wasn't aiming in particular at this person with the "huge fight" part.

[ Parent | on HN ]