Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I can see your point of view, though one nitpick: the GPL doesn't prevent shenanigans any more than an MIT license. With a CLA, the owners can relicense the code as a non-open source license. With both MIT or GPL, you retain the rights to develop the previously released code.

It's the FSF's commitment (mentioned upthread) to not do that which arguably makes it safe to sign a CLA with the FSF.




But with the GPL, all future modifications to the code are required to also be GPL. You cannot make a closed-source fork of a GPL'd project.


A third party can’t, but the copyright holder can. That’s why some companies release GPL’d software with a closed commercial version.

We can generally trust the FSF not to, but copyright gives you that right.


Right, but they're not the copyright holder. This is often the purpose of the CLA and the reason you shouldn't sign it.

Edit: thought I was on a different thread. You're right on this one.




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

Search: