If temptation to abuse of power were inevitable, we would see a lot more individual contributors to open projects who retained ownership of their copyrights suing project users about meaningless license violations for monetary settlements.Ĭompanies like Elastic have changed to new licenses for future development. There is no reason CLAs for a project can't be shared openly. CLAs give them all the rights we can think of to license on whatever terms, so they're not caught short. Second, part of the point of a CLA in many cases is to enable project stewards to change or legally upgrade license terms in the future. For one, many open source licenses are ancient, without clear and complete license grants by today's standards. License grants in CLAs are often in different, broader terms than open source licenses for several reasons. FSF's copyright assignment paperwork isn't a contributor license agreement, either. A contributor license agreement doesn't change who owns any copyrights, either.
Not that it "encourages distributed ownership". This is the main disadvantage of the DCO, especially in non-GPL projects. ) It has no part that clearly says the contributor grants a license for their contribution, or on what terms. The Developer Certificate of Origin is not a contributor license agreement.
Good argumentation from very faulty assumptions.
0 kommentar(er)
