[victormy]

Lol, maybe you should fund the RustFS team yourself or sponsor a top-tier legal team for them. If you can help them rewrite their CLAs and guarantee they'll never face any IP risks down the road, then sure, you're 100% right.

[everfrustrated]

Interesting that all your comments are shilling for RustFS

[victormy]

Fair point on the frequency of my comments, but there’s a nuance to the CLA discussion. Even with Apache 2.0, many major projects (like those under the CNCF or Apache Foundation) require a CLA to ensure the project has the legal right to distribute the code indefinitely.

My focus on the CLA is about building a solid foundation for RustFS so it doesn't face the licensing "re-branding" drama we've seen with other storage projects recently. It’s about long-term stability for the community, not just a marketing ploy.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

And again - what IP risk does a CLA solve, that a DCO wouldn't? Like, IANAL so I certainly could be missing something, but I'd like to hear what it might be.

[victormy]

I’m also maintaining an open-source project and have spent significant time drafting our CLA, so I completely understand the concerns surrounding them.

While DCO is excellent for tracking provenance, we opted for a CLA primarily to address explicit patent grants and sublicensing rights—areas where a standard DCO often lacks the comprehensive legal coverage that a formal agreement provides.

It’s a common and sustainable practice in the industry to keep the core code open-source while developing enterprise features. Without a solid CLA in place, a project faces massive legal hurdles later on—whether that’s for future commercialization or even the eventual donation of the project to an open-source foundation like the CNCF or Apache Foundation. We're just trying to ensure long-term legal clarity for everyone involved.