Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Matt Lee <mattl AT creativecommons.org>]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Blaise Alleyne <email+libre AT blaise.ca> wrote:

> Couldn't "AGPLv3 or later" solve that?

I can see a use-case where it can't. For example, things licensed
GPLv3 or later can't easily be transferred to the AGPL, so if we
needed to switch from AGPL to the fictional XGPL at some point, I can
see that being useful.

> 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.

It would also give contributors the full legal clout of Creative
Commons in those situations.

> 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.).

Yeah, it is. I've run projects with CLAs before under the GNU banner,
and generally things work out pretty easily if you have a solid base
of contributors, but I can see how a casual contributor would be put
off.