| That github thread was maddening to read. They actually got a lawyer to chime in with their explanation for why the new CLA is needed, and then we got this nonsense: > Among other changes, the updated CLA gives the Foundation the ability to re-license contributions under Apache 2.0. But they already said: > There is no need to get new signatures for old contributions So they're not planning on getting all old contributions to be updated to the new CLA, but they think the new CLA will let them relicense the entire code base under Apache 2.0. That's not how that works! But it gets worse, because when challenged the lawyer quotes the updated CLA language: > You understand and agree that the JS Foundation projects and your Contributions are public and that a record of the Contributions (including all metadata and personal information you submit with them) is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with the JS Foundation’s policies and the requirements of the Apache v2.0 license where they are relevant. "You [...] agree that [...] your Contributions are public and that a record of the Contributions (including all metadata and personal information you submit with them) [...] may be redistributed consistent with [...] the requirements of the Apache v2.0 license where they are relevant." That's clearly saying that they may need to provide people with the record of your contribution in order to prove that, eg, the Apache v2.0 license is being complied with. It is not an agreement that your actual contribution is licensed (or can be relicensed) under the Apache v2.0 license. This is just magical thinking. You can't just mumble the words "Apache 2.0" somewhere in the general neighborhood of a legal document and have it magically relicense years of contributions. You certainly can't make people agree that metadata about your contribution can be shared with some people, and then expect that to magically change the license under which the contribution itself exists. |