299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
|
This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor
license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing
binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible
license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is
typically done in order to allow a corporation to "own" the
contributions so that it can legally relicense them to those who do not
wish to be subject to the GPL, usually for a hefty fee. A CLA is not
necessary for the legal integrity of a GPL-based
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS]
project, so it's often dispensed with.
Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically
relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code.
Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate
overlord or commercial-use relicensing option. It is one way to ensure
that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of
code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD
|
|
>
>
|
>
|
>
|
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
|
This difference in outlook allows a GPL-based project to do without a
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement|constributor
license agreement] (CLA) because by the very act of distributing
binaries, you are bound to also distribute the source under a compatible
license. There are GPL-based projects that do require a CLA, but this is
typically done in order to allow a corporation to "own" the
contributions so that it can legally relicense them to those who do not
wish to be subject to the GPL. The GPL is being used in this case not so
much to promote the FOSS philosophy but as a prod to drive companies
toward the "commercial version," which is naturally available only for a
significant fee. Because a CLA is unnecessary for the legal integrity of
a GPL-based
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software|FOSS]
project, it's often dispensed with when there aren't other
considerations pushing the organization to require one.
Contrast a BSD-style project, where contributions are not automatically
relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code.
Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate
overlord or commercial-use relicensing option. It is one way to ensure
that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of
code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD
|