8 ms·

Yes, you grant the entity you've submitted a contribution to, to use (not own) your contribution in whatever it ends up in. That was the whole point of the deve

Yes, you grant the entity you've submitted a contribution to, to use (not own) your contribution in whatever it ends up in. That was the whole point of the developer's contribution right?

pie_flavor 1y ago
The CLA has you granting them a non-open-source license. It permits them to change the Zed license to a proprietary one while still incorporating your contributions. It doesn't assign copyright ownership, but your retaining the ability to release your contribution under a different license later has little practical value.
- withinrafael 1y ago
  Isn't that a good thing? As a dev submitting something to them, I want my feature/bugfix to stay with the product. Are you suggesting that devs should be able to burden the original contribution with conditions, like "they can't use my code without permission 5 years later if you relicense"? That's untenable, isn't it? I don't know how else you would accept external contributions for software without the grant in the CLA. Perhaps I'm not creative enough!
  - pie_flavor 1y ago
    I submit my code contributions, for free, because I am participating in a collaborative community effort called an Open Source Project. I do not typically contribute to the proprietary codebases of for-profit companies for free; I have a contractor rate for that. If you say 'that makes it untenable for me to accept your contributions for free, then relicense to proprietary keeping those contributions', well, that's your problem. I don't particularly care about arranging tenable circumstances for you to sell my work under a proprietary license without paying me. The way you accept external contributions for software without a CLA grant is by not attempting to take the project proprietary, and keeping the open source arrangement forever. I do not see how you could be confused about an open source project staying open source forever while taking open-source-only contributions. That is what almost all open source projects do.
    - withinrafael 1y ago
      That's a really good point—I hadn't considered it from that angle. Thanks for that perspective.
max-privatevoid 1y ago
I'm concerned about relicensing. See HashiCorp.

Yes, you grant the entity you've submitted a contribution to, to use (not own) your contribution in whatever it ends up in. That was the whole point of the developer's contribution right?

pie_flavor 1y ago

The CLA has you granting them a non-open-source license. It permits them to change the Zed license to a proprietary one while still incorporating your contributions. It doesn't assign copyright ownership, but your retaining the ability to release your contribution under a different license later has little practical value.

withinrafael 1y ago
Isn't that a good thing? As a dev submitting something to them, I want my feature/bugfix to stay with the product. Are you suggesting that devs should be able to burden the original contribution with conditions, like "they can't use my code without permission 5 years later if you relicense"? That's untenable, isn't it? I don't know how else you would accept external contributions for software without the grant in the CLA. Perhaps I'm not creative enough!
- pie_flavor 1y ago
  I submit my code contributions, for free, because I am participating in a collaborative community effort called an Open Source Project. I do not typically contribute to the proprietary codebases of for-profit companies for free; I have a contractor rate for that. If you say 'that makes it untenable for me to accept your contributions for free, then relicense to proprietary keeping those contributions', well, that's your problem. I don't particularly care about arranging tenable circumstances for you to sell my work under a proprietary license without paying me. The way you accept external contributions for software without a CLA grant is by not attempting to take the project proprietary, and keeping the open source arrangement forever. I do not see how you could be confused about an open source project staying open source forever while taking open-source-only contributions. That is what almost all open source projects do.
  - withinrafael 1y ago
    That's a really good point—I hadn't considered it from that angle. Thanks for that perspective.

max-privatevoid 1y ago

I'm concerned about relicensing. See HashiCorp.