On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:04:32 +0100 Daniel Littlewood <danielittlew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Daniel, > My argument that the GPL is simpler here is that in the "default case" > where changes are simply submitted without the contributor talking > about licensing, the project as a whole is not covered by the given > license (only those contributions which have explicitly agreed to it). > For small projects, or projects hosted on Github, this is no problem. > > But if, some time later, a user decides they want to fork the project, > simply seeing that the project is free is not enough to guarantee they > can use it. They need to see either something like a CLA (which may > cede the copyright to the maintainer, or simply agree that their > contributions inherit the parent license), or an explicit statement > from every contributor agreeing to license their changes under a free > license. > > So whether it's a "need" or a "simplification" is a matter of > perspective - I only think it would matter for projects above a > certain size. But the need to get access to downstream changes of your > own project is one of the motivating factors behind the GPL - I > believe Linus cites it as his motivation for choosing it for Linux. ah I see, yes, this is a big bonus of the GPL, as it mandates that for derivative works and modifications. Thanks for your elaboration! With best regards Laslo
