Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-devel - Re: [cc-devel] We'd like your feedback on our proposed new contributor agreement for The List app

cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Blaise Alleyne <email+libre AT blaise.ca>
  • To: Matt Lee <mattl AT creativecommons.org>
  • Cc: "cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org devel" <cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-devel] We'd like your feedback on our proposed new contributor agreement for The List app
  • Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:19:16 -0500

On 19/12/14 05:12 PM, Matt Lee wrote:
>> Why do you feel the need for a CLA? Why not just use the AGPL?
>
> Mostly so that if we needed to move to a new version of the AGPL [...]

Couldn't "AGPLv3 or later" solve that?


> or another GPL-compatible license, we could.
>
> But I'll admit that's unlikely.
>

Right. I guess inbound=outbound prioritizes simplicity and contributor
convenience and easier management etc. over the unlikely case that relicensing
would happen.

In the case of relicensing, I guess there'd be a lot of work involved to
contact
all contributors and get assent or remove code. But the tradeoff seems to be
taking on the complexity, overhead and friction of a CLA *everyday* because
it'd
save a ton of time and effort in the unlikely event of relicensing.

I could see a decision either way, but I don't think the everyday friction is
to
be taken lightly. Requiring that contributors sign a CLA is a barrier to new
contributors, an extra hurdle, whether in terms of effort, or understanding
(e.g. FUD about CLAs and proprietary relicensing and the AGPL, etc.).





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page