Would you sign a CLA if it specified the License your code would be able to the project under? (I.e. the project can only use your code if it says MIT or BSD or GPL licensed).
CLAs can have a legitimate purpose in clarifying copyright ownerships.
CLAs can have a legitimate purpose in clarifying copyright ownerships.
I don't understand.
> CLAs can have a legitimate purpose in clarifying copyright ownerships.
Isn't that the whole point of a CLA? The CLA is usually a way for the contributor to renounce their copyright. In other words, the project asks me to make a contribution for free, and on top of that they want to own the copyright for it.
If they want to own the copyright for my work, how about they pay me?
Sure, but that's not a CLA. You have a contract, and your company buys your work. If you contribute for free to a random project and they ask you to sign a CLA, they are not paying you for your work. They just want your work + your copyright for free.
If you want to merge your code into someone else's repository, thereby benefiting from their continued maintenance efforts, how about you give them the copyright? You don't have to if you don't want to. You can keep your copyright by merging your improvements into your own fork and maintaining it yourself. It is within your power.
Seems like a fair deal to me. Everyone gets a nice AGPLv3 project to hack on. That's freedom and it is assured. If you want someone else to maintain that project for you the least you can do is give them control over it by assigning copyright. It's still AGPLv3 for everyone else, and it gives the maintainers the leverage needed to negotiate deals with corporations.
Companies paying for exceptions to the GPL is something even Stallman promotes.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
This is a good thing and strengthens free software. Being against this is a position so extreme that even Stallman rejects it. And it can't be done if you need the consent of every single contributor.
I even emailed Stallman directly to confirm the ethics of this. He says it's better this way because only the copyright owner can do it. Permissive licenses give everyone that power. Copyleft keeps it contained.
> It is my understanding that as the copyright holders
> they have the right to do it without any problems.
> They leverage the AGPLv3 to make it harder for their
> competitors to use the code to compete against them.
I see what you mean. The original developer can engage
in a practice that blocks coopertation.
By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL,
would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice.
In a perverse sense that could seem more fair,
but I think it is also more harmful.
On balance, using the AGPL is better.under US law, this is an impossibility. Under a CLA, you retain your copyright, and you (typically) give someone else a perpetual, irrevocable license to use your copyrighted material in their own product.
Copyright law is completely insane.
I told him about corporations using AGPLv3 as leverage in order to build SaaS products around the software. As copyright holders, they can do whatever they want while everyone else must comply with license terms. The CLA is a necessary component of that strategy.
I asked him what he thought of the practice. That's what he replied. He didn't go into much detail about SaaS. He said it was too broad a term to judge.
Here's the full email exchange:
Hello, Dr. Stallman. I would like to know your views
on the ethics of certain uses of the AGPLv3.
There are apparently some corporations that
are releasing free software under the AGPLv3
while building software-as-a-service platforms
using the same software. It is my understanding
that as the copyright holders they have the right
to do it without any problems. They leverage the
AGPLv3 to make it harder for their competitors
to use the code to compete against them.
In online discussions on this matter, I pointed
to an article that you wrote regarding the ethics
of selling exceptions to the GPL. You argued
that that if selling this exception was unethical
then so was releasing software under permissive
licenses, and rejected the idea that it was unethical.
The conclusion was that this enabled proprietary
software to be freed, an ideal outcome.
I'd like to ask if you think the same logic applies
to the SaaS situation I mentioned. I think it does,
but others did not agree.
People are using the AGPLv3 to maximize leverage.
Corporations seem to be incapable of tolerating the
license's terms, a situation that leads to copyright
holders providing a business solution: paying for it.
They can buy special permission to use the software.
These days, it appears the choice being offered is to
buy into the company's SaaS platform instead of
purchasing a special permission or license.
The exact mechanism employed by the business
seems like a minor detail to me but perhaps there
are some ethical considerations that I'm not seeing.
So I decided to send you this email and ask what
your opinion on the matter is.
Thank you for your time,
Matheus
---
> There are apparently some corporations [...]
"Software as a service" covers such a broad range of computing
practices that I generally don't use it. It is too broad, and gives
too little information, to judge whether a practice is good or bad.
> It is my understanding [...]
I see what you mean. The original developer can engage
in a practice that blocks coopertation.
By contrast, using some other license, such as the ordinary GPL,
would permitt ANY user of the program to engage in that practice.
In a perverse sense that could seem more fair, but I think it
is also more harmful.
On balance, using the AGPL is better.I refuse in general. If they want me to read and sign extra legalese, I expect to be paid for it.
If they are unwilling me to pay for my time and code I license away, then I will find other project to contribute to.
I don't know about other countries, but you actually cannot renounce your copyright under American law. It is an impossibility.
The only way your own code can belong irrevocably to someone else is if you are contracted under a work-for-hire arrangement or if you are an employee of the other entity when you produce the work. (Or if you die and your heirs become the new owners)
If you were to write code and then later submit it to a project (say, via PR), they cannot retroactively implement a work-for-hire arrangement.
In all other cases, the creator is the copyright owner forever. That status cannot be assigned to anyone else. (Except to one's heirs upon death.)
A CLA is a licensing agreement (that's the "LA" part!), where you license your own copyrighted material to another entity, and it's often in perpetuity.
But here's the trick: under US law, an author or author's heirs (i.e., copyright holders in non-WFH situations) can revoke a license in certain situations. The provisions allowing this exist specifically so that non-remunerative licenses (i.e., ones the copyright owner didn't get paid to license) can be revoked.
You can read about some of these termination provisions in 17 USC 203, 304(c), and 304(d).
And this is true: under US law, after 35 years you can reclaim your copyright
"It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned."
https://casetext.com/case/micro-star-v-formgen-inc
As for reclaiming a transferred copyright, it's possible, but complicated. It also takes at least 35 years, which is likely too long to be of practical use to most folks.
I mean in practice nobody will ever be able to do that, just like most licences are just completely ignored. But I mean in theory?
the above all seems unlikely but you cannot discount it. which is another reason to not sign a CLA - you have no idea what future changes you might agree with.
depending on the terms you may own the code but it isn't a useful right as without everyone else including them you can't use your right to get a good license in place (one they disagree with so of course they won't)
By the way, I'm not disagreeing. I'm Australian and curious about the US situation. My understanding was that whilst you can't assign copyright — insofar as you ought to always be able refer to yourself as the original author — you can provide an irrevocable license giving someone else the rights to reproduce, license and sublicense as they see fit.
This is untrue. The "L" in "CLA" means you are licensing the code to someone else, not transferring copyright.
Edit: [Here](https://github.com/Decathlon/template/blob/master/contributo...) is a sample CLA you see on Github.
Inter alia,
> You hereby grant to Decathlon and to recipients of software distributed by Decathlon a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contributions and such derivative works.
Observe you are licensing the code, not transferring copyright.
Remember that without a license most people don't have any right to copy the software at all, so it's in a corporation's best interest to make sure the GPL continues to be valid. And the law always does what's in a corporation's best interest.
Right now gpl assumes things fall back to copyright but companies have an interest inencoding open soure into law in a way that would benefit them. Some trickery could make something in gpl illegal and then by law it falls back to the new open source license not no license.