Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mfru 797 days ago
It seems to me that dual-licensing AGPL + commercial and no CLAs is the best way to go.

AGPL ensures no one will serve your software via network without also showing their code (which they can avoid by buying commercial licenses and thus funding the project) and no CLAs ensures that the project can not be relicensed without every contributor agreeing. (after all, if really every person can agree it is a good idea there might be some merit to it).
1 comments
kubanczyk 797 days ago
No CLA for commercial license would mean that any contributor retains copyright to their work. So, you mean they get proportional dividend from commercial contracts? Is there a precedent? I'm honestly curious.
link
Pet_Ant 797 days ago
No, because the license. If you release code as FooOSS please will remain as FooOSS. With a CLA the company that owns it can also offer it as a different license. If you don’t sign the CLA, you can offer it as a different license…

But regardless I sell your code under FooOSS until the cows come home without paying anymore else a dime. If I couldn’t, then it wouldn’t be OSS. Now, depending on the FooOSS I might have to share any changes I make… but you cannot revoke my license to your’s.

link