This might be a viable licensing scheme for Swiss government contractors now. The federal government requires open source licenses for all software projects as of last year or so.
(A)GPL+CLA might be a good way to ensure the interests of the both the Swiss people and the flexibility or competitiveness of contractors, allowing them to retain proprietary licenses where needed or wanted.
Follow up:
Am I correct in thinking that this might slightly hinder contributions on one hand, but ultimately anyone could still maintain an _independent_ fork?
Or in other words: Would contributions to a fork still require signing the CLA and essentially allow the original authors to dual license any such contributions?
Contributions to a fork could be done under just the AGPL, without any CLAs (also to the original repo, but those won't be accepted). Then the entire fork is effectively AGPL only.
I don't think any original CLAs would apply to the fork, unless the fork owner is the same legal entity/successor as defined in there.
Same goes for the original authors, they'd need CLAs from all fork contributors.
This might be a viable licensing scheme for Swiss government contractors now. The federal government requires open source licenses for all software projects as of last year or so.
(A)GPL+CLA might be a good way to ensure the interests of the both the Swiss people and the flexibility or competitiveness of contractors, allowing them to retain proprietary licenses where needed or wanted.
Follow up:
Am I correct in thinking that this might slightly hinder contributions on one hand, but ultimately anyone could still maintain an _independent_ fork?
Or in other words: Would contributions to a fork still require signing the CLA and essentially allow the original authors to dual license any such contributions?