Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That ridiculous: "started cargo-culting the(totally unnecessary) CLA process"

It's so they can re-license in the future. There are some projects with so many authors that it is impossible to re-license because you need sign-off by every single person, even if it makes sense to re-license.



From a contributer's point of view, the inability to re-license practically is often a feature, not a bug. CLAs make the worst case scenario touted by GPL advocates about non-GPL licenses practical: They can profit directly and exclusively from your work without your direct consent.


Also the ability to relicense an Apache License 2.0 work is relatively unimportant (compared to, say, the ability to relicense something under a more restrictive license like the GPL).


I know CLAs let corps relicense. In fact, you'll find that I explicitly mentioned relicensing in the sentence immediately preceding that one...

Can you explain what's ridiculous about the part of my comment that you quoted?


That's a feature. What is the point of contributing to a project, if someone else can effectively destroy all your work at their discretion?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: