Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

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

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.).