• antihumanitarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    A major caveat I’ve noticed some people misunderstand: it’s corporate CLAs that are problematic. The Apache Foundation also requires contributors sign a CLA, but it’s to provide a legal fail safe and a way to update to say Apache 3.0 if need be one day. Apache’s non profit, open source mission aligns with respecting the rights of contributors and the community. Corporations, on the other hand, not so much.

    • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The way I see it is that we don’t know the content of Apache 3.0, nor have a vote to chose what license they adapt in the end. Does Apache have a good track record? Yes, but it is getting diffcult to put trust in sonething today. It’s still a rug under, or fail safe as you name it, which is used by corprates today. I would rather have a framework/procedure in place preventing it from happening from the get go.

      ADDITION: I haven’t read Apache’s CLA yet so it might or might not contains copyright grant clause.