@hailey Well, it actually isn't "for free" if the fix would include code to be copyrightable. That would then place a future burden on the open source project.
Also: Investigating whether the fix is copyrightable or not takes time (= cost)
Thus, the only possible solution an open source project has is to ask contributors to sign a CLA.
If the change is significant, I hope you trust the author, because risks of them introducing harm thru code are much greater than risks of copyright shenanigans. You have evidence of their intent to put the code in project X under license Y. If you think that's not enough, have them state it explicitly. This does not need a lopsided contract, especially not one that gives you power to relicense proprietary.
@troed@jacqueline@hailey Even if they do sign a CLA, that does nothing to mitigate risk that the code is plagiarized and they lack any rights to license it to you. So CLA doesn't even CYA. It just keeps the VCs happy knowing they can rugpull the FOSS community.
@troed@jacqueline@hailey The intended power dynamic when we (FOSS community) interact with FOSS under a commercial umbrella is that we are the ones with the power to rugpull. When the shareholders try to do shit we don't approve of, we fork and leave them holding a silly brand name.
@tursiae totally, and it's just not how the social contract works. I am giving something to you out of my own kindness, take it or leave it, but placing some burdensome task on me is the exact opposite of reasonable
@hailey@tursiae i've been on the other end of this (as much as i hate having to sign anything); interested in hearing what happens to an FOSS project when you don't?
Add comment