Re: [hackers] Licensing status of patches

From: Laslo Hunhold <>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 08:37:33 +0200

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:06:32 +0100
Daniel Littlewood <> wrote:

Dear Daniel,

> I am wary of going too far off topic, but I think a convincing
> argument against the use of "permissive" licenses like MIT is that if
> your project grows above a certain size, it necessitates CLAs in
> addition to a license. If you do not use a platform like GitHub who
> guarantees that inbound=outbound, then you don't necessarily have a
> right to your contributors' changes, which I'm sure could be painful.
> Sure, it's an unlikely situation, but so are most pathological
> behaviours that necessitate a license.

as far as I know, there's no need for a CLA. CLAs are just a
simplification that contributors waive their rights to the code to the
legal entity behind the project so the license file is not littered
with 100s of people but only the legal entity. Which license you're
using doesn't matter here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

With best regards

Received on Thu Oct 01 2020 - 08:37:33 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Oct 01 2020 - 08:48:32 CEST