|
|
|
|
|
|
by bkor
1031 days ago
|
|
|
> I have a CAA on my GPL project so that I have the right to start releasing it as MIT, that is, more Free. That really depends on the CAA. It might allow way more. The text might be (legally) not applicable or have flaws, etc. > Do you find this disturbing? It is a barrier to contribute. I would not even bother trying to contribute. Your statements here are already a bit conflicting to me. You partly might want to monetize the software. You partly might want to release it as MIT. I don't see how you'd still have a means to monetize if you'd release it as MIT. Feels like you want to keep all options open. That all said, hey, you developed it, so cool if you'd listen to people with different opinions but I'd likely not need your software anyway I guess. Further, loads of non-CAA pure GPL software never receive any contributions. It takes quite a bit of effort to be noticed and get contributions. FYI: If I reread above parts might come across as harsh but none is meant that way. |
|
|
Yeah, I've put 7 years and thousands of hours into it. I do want to keep my options open!
> loads of non-CAA pure GPL software never receive any contributions.
Yup, for several years before I had a CAA I received almost no contributions, except from people I had a direct personal relationship with. The CAA hasn't deterred people, in fact if you look at the timeline, I've gotten more contributors since I've put the CAA into place. (I'm sure it's not cause and effect, but still.)
> It is a barrier to contribute. I would not even bother trying to contribute.
I used to think that I would want any and all contributions to my project. But I've learned over time that, except for trivial changes, a PR from a new contributor is more effort than it's worth, by itself. I mean I can write code, and I do--lots of it. The real value in contributing is everything else: documentation, bugfixing, sincere attention on the problem. So I realized that I'm looking for repeat contributors, the ones who are going to invest in the project, and become active community members, maybe even maintainers. And the low-effort drive-by contributors who would be deterred by e.g. a CAA were never the contributors that were going to move the needle anyway.
In fact, and please correct me if I'm wrong, based on your general tone above, I'm guessing that you've never been an active contributor to any open source project, CLA/CAA or not. In which case, I consider the CAA to have been effective: you can feel self-righteous and I avoid the hassle.