| Thank you for replying! > This problem was never reported a single time on our Zulip or by email This shouldn't be surprising; the CLA requirement drives away contributors before their first contribution. Like me. I saw no point in a person who hasn't made any contributions petitioning you for a policy change. This phenomenon is one of the insidious effects of policies which ward off contributors before they make their first contribution. A lot of us fell for CLAs when they were new and shiny. By now we've all seen way too many examples of people getting screwed by them. Fool me once, fool me twice... https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html Using artificial pijul dependency arcs as CLA acknowledgements is certainly cute. But frankly, for legal matters, something that can't be misinterpreted like a `Developer-Certificate-of-Origin:` header is probably a better idea. By the way, have you noticed that `pijul git` import loses some of the git headers, like `Committer` and `CommitterDate`? Also, importing a large repo has exposed what appears to be some significantly superlogarithmic-time behaviors in `pijul record`. > in the case of an evolution of the license I think you should try to let go of the idea of "evolving the license" of an open source project that invites contributions. If you want to go the sqlite route that is absolutely fine; honestly pijul is one of the few pieces of software that is (after accounting for younger age) on the same level of sophistication as sqlite. Just explain that your project, like sqlite, is open source but not soliciting contributions. I think that with the CLA requirement you have effectively made this choice -- but in the way which maximizes the number of people annoyed: both the people who get triggered by any mention of the GNU project as well as the people who support its goals! This is quite a neat trick to pull off, although I fear it was unintentional. > like applying linter fixes without understanding any of the code Yeah I saw that PR, which was obnoxious for other reasons as well. Bravo to you and felix91gr for being so polite in your responses. |
> I think you should try to let go of the idea of "evolving the license" of an open source project that invites contributions.
Yes, this is becoming clearer now, but wasn't for a long time, since choosing any license on a complicated tool like this one, which few people fully understand, inevitably sparks discussions on the license, because if you got to say something, it is easier to discuss than commutativity, pushouts (hard-core theory), Sanakirja, endianness (hard-core practice).
> This is quite a neat trick to pull off, although I fear it was unintentional.
;-)
> Yeah I saw that PR
There were many: a single one wouldn't have changed my mind. And many more on what projects/topics/software I should be interested in.