Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Blaise Alleyne <email+libre AT blaise.ca>]

On 19/12/14 01:38 PM, j wrote:
> On 13/12/14 05:17, Rob Myers wrote:
> 
>> The Affero GPL is indeed a free software license.
>>
>> How do you mean "secret sauce"?
> 
> All to often, software that uses the Affero GPL requires additional
> software that is closed source, proprietary, and for which source code
> is not available, to provide all of the expected functionality and
> capabilities.
> 

Unfortunately, you could say the same thing about GPL software -- there are 
many
cases of proprietary relicensing there too.

abusus non tollit usum

The AGPL is a great license for preserving freedom when used properly.


In terms of actual feedback on the contributor agreement, it seems to make the
preservation of freedom explicit. Section 1(c) says:

"In exchange, Creative Commons agrees to apply only GPL-compatible copyleft
licenses to Your Original Contributions and any works owned by Creative 
Commons
that are based on Your Contributions."

I'm no lawyer either, but it seems like the intention there is to exclude the
possibility of proprietary relicensing.


As a non-lawyer, the contributor agreement seems to make sense, insofar as
contributor agreements go. Any reason why you feel the need for copyright
assignment specifically though, versus an inbound=outbound approach?

The Software Freedom Conservancy, for example, makes an argument for
inbound=outbound over CLAs:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/

Why do you feel the need for a CLA? Why not just use the AGPL?

*shrugs*