[ensignavenger]

I would rather a software product be eventually open source than use a never open source license, but I still try not to use it if I can choose open source. And I refuse to sign CLA's that require giving more eights than the license grants to me, and won't sponsor projects that require them. (with some limited, carefully considered exceptions for well established open source foundations that require CLAs, but that have sufficient gornance to add trust)

[oddevan]

Out of curiosity (since I'm pursuing an AGPL/proprietary dual-license), how would you consider a CLA that explicitly tied my right to sell the proprietary license to releasing under the AGPL?

> Smolblog shall be entitled to make Your Contributions available under a proprietary license provided Smolblog also makes Your Contributions available to the public under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 or later.

[ensignavenger]

That gives you more rights than it gives me. I was always free to release my patch under the AGPL, why would I need you to do it? (well, if you do it I wouldn't have to maintain a fork, which is something I will admit).

It would allow you to maintain a proprietary product with proprietary features that you don't release under the AGPL and use my code within that product.

I like reciprical licenses, if I get code from you under the MIT license, I will give you code back under the MIT license (which you can use however you want to, under that license, just like I can.) On the other hand if you give me your code under the AGPLv3, I give you back code under the AGPLv3 (and you can take it or leave it, so long as if you take it, it is under the terms of the AGPLv3 license).

At least, that is my idealist stance. But in reality, practicality sometimes takes precedence, so I might make a minor bugfix or something. But then I have all the trouble of reading the CLA, making sure I understand it, and agreeing to it, so practicality may just as likely lead me to just file an issue instead and patch my own copy.

[oddevan]

Totally fair, thanks for responding!

> It would allow you to maintain a proprietary product with proprietary features that you don't release under the AGPL and use my code within that product.

As much as I can say "everything in my version is AGPL; this is just for _other_ companies" I don't know that there's a way to _legally_ guarantee it that wouldn't be easily circumventable, at least not without rendering the idea useless in one way or another.

So yeah, thanks for the insight, I really appreciate it!

[ensignavenger]

Yeah, I thought about that, and unless you form a nonprofit with explicit governance requiring the release to all code, and the CLA is to the nonprofit, it would be difficult to guarantee. Even the nonprofit route isn't a guarantee, which is why I would evaluate each organization separately for their history and governance. It would likely take some time for a new organization to develop the reputation.