6 ms·
Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. I mean I dislike CLAs personally, but I understand why they can be healthy f
by taway1237 3y ago
Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF.
I mean I dislike CLAs personally, but I understand why they can be healthy for a project growth.
- gtirloni 3y agoNo, the issue is not that they are not open source. The issue is the risk to users/contributors. These two things are being conflated in this discussion. One thing is a CLA and copyright/license changes. The other is the license itself.
- ekidd 3y ago> Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. The last time I saw a FSF CLA, it was part of a larger agreement that also imposed obligations on the FSF. In the long run, there may be risks to the FSF holding so many copyrights. But I don't think it clarifies matters to treat the FSF's CLAs the same as ones used by a "open core" VC funded startup.
- gkbrk 3y agoDo you truly see no difference between assigning rights to your own code to a non-profit foundation dedicated to Free Software and assigning rights to your own code to a for-profit company? Especially when the for-profit company openly announces this assignment of rights is for the purpose of selling code you wrote to others without giving back to the authors. The FSF doesn't have a track record of asking for CLAs, and then selling your code to others under different licenses and pocketing the profits.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoIf the Free Software Foundation which was started and is headed by Stallman himself betrays the free software movement, then nothing in this world can be trusted anymore.
- hoseja 3y agoStallman has been browbeaten. For, uhh, being an awkward nerd. Can't have those having influence in our technological world.