Fossil SCM
Clarified the consequences of a CLA on Fossil and on FOSS projects in general in the "Fossil vs Git" doc.
Commit
fffa67693d7c65ab5249db3fec37be01ee907c29e2039accfac17fc41406d0b0
Parent
633830fe17d64b0…
1 file changed
+17
-2
+17
-2
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | ||
| @@ -316,12 +316,27 @@ | ||
| 316 | 316 | relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. |
| 317 | 317 | Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate |
| 318 | 318 | overlord or commercial-use relicensing option in order to ensure |
| 319 | 319 | that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of |
| 320 | 320 | code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD |
| 321 | -license. The greater necesity for having a CLA in a BSD-licensed project | |
| 322 | -makes signing up new contributors harder. | |
| 321 | +license. | |
| 322 | + | |
| 323 | +A CLA makes signing up new contributors harder. It's an extra | |
| 324 | +gatekeeping step, so it discourages low-engagement contributors. A CLA | |
| 325 | +also drives off those unable to accept the CLA's restrictions on their | |
| 326 | +rights, which are otherwise quite minimal under a BSD-style license. The | |
| 327 | +GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this | |
| 328 | +up-front gatekeeping. It's easier to contribute to a CLA-less GPL-based | |
| 329 | +project than to a BSD-based project that requires that contributors sign | |
| 330 | +a CLA. | |
| 331 | + | |
| 332 | +We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think | |
| 333 | +it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who | |
| 334 | +made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that | |
| 335 | +community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects | |
| 336 | +the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a | |
| 337 | +smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. | |
| 323 | 338 | |
| 324 | 339 | Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil |
| 325 | 340 | or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a |
| 326 | 341 | more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 327 | 342 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 328 | 343 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -316,12 +316,27 @@ | |
| 316 | relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. |
| 317 | Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate |
| 318 | overlord or commercial-use relicensing option in order to ensure |
| 319 | that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of |
| 320 | code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD |
| 321 | license. The greater necesity for having a CLA in a BSD-licensed project |
| 322 | makes signing up new contributors harder. |
| 323 | |
| 324 | Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil |
| 325 | or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a |
| 326 | more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 327 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 328 |
| --- www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| +++ www/fossil-v-git.wiki | |
| @@ -316,12 +316,27 @@ | |
| 316 | relicensed merely by being distributed with the preexisting BSD code. |
| 317 | Such projects often require a CLA even when there is no corporate |
| 318 | overlord or commercial-use relicensing option in order to ensure |
| 319 | that all contributions are compatibly licensed with the existing body of |
| 320 | code. It's a way to add a "no takebacks" clause to the basic BSD |
| 321 | license. |
| 322 | |
| 323 | A CLA makes signing up new contributors harder. It's an extra |
| 324 | gatekeeping step, so it discourages low-engagement contributors. A CLA |
| 325 | also drives off those unable to accept the CLA's restrictions on their |
| 326 | rights, which are otherwise quite minimal under a BSD-style license. The |
| 327 | GPL requires much the same sort of relinquishment of rights without this |
| 328 | up-front gatekeeping. It's easier to contribute to a CLA-less GPL-based |
| 329 | project than to a BSD-based project that requires that contributors sign |
| 330 | a CLA. |
| 331 | |
| 332 | We think this additional friction is not an entirely bad thing. We think |
| 333 | it creates greater contributor community cohesion, because everyone who |
| 334 | made it over the legal hurdle has made an active step to get into that |
| 335 | community. More to the point here in this document, we think it affects |
| 336 | the design and implementation of Fossil: its contributions come from a |
| 337 | smaller, more cohesive group of people than with Git. |
| 338 | |
| 339 | Neither license affects the repository contents managed by either Fossil |
| 340 | or Git. Nevertheless, one can see a more GPL-oriented world-view in Git and a |
| 341 | more BSD-oriented world-view in Fossil. Git encourages anonymous contributions |
| 342 | and siloed development, which are hallmarks of the GPL/bazaar approach to |
| 343 |