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.). _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
