This is an essay I wrote for English class a few months ago. I wanted to improve it and then post it on here, but that didn’t happen and it ended up getting buried deep in a directory structure. I’m posting it now with some links added, some errors fixed and some sentences worded differently.
It’s hard to deny that Open source and Free software has gotten big. Since Richard Stallman started the GNU operating system in September 1983 — an attempt to create an operating system composed of free software that could be a drop-in replacement for the proprietary Unix — the community has evolved greatly. When in 1989 Stallman published the GNU General Public License that enforces the “free” in “free software”, much of the operating system was already done. Then in 1991 Linus Torvalds released Linux, allowing the GNU operating system to run on its own. These days this and other open source software is found everywhere, but one issue that keeps coming up is licensing. Many projects led by companies require contributors to sign a Contributor License Agreement. I think this is a bad development.
For most open source software there’s an unwritten rule that the code you contribute to the project is released under the same license as the software already uses. Every contributor maintains his or her copyright, but they release their code under a license like the GPL, the MIT license, or similar. This has certain implications. For one, sometimes the original developer want to release the software using a different license. This is only possible if all contributors agree to it. It could also have implications for enforcing the license, because that can only be done by the copyright holder(s).
The Free Software Foundation and the Apache Software Foundation, among others, introduced CLAs to clear up the situation. You assign the copyright of your changes over to the FSF, or grant a license to the Apache Foundation. This agreement clears up the legal standing of your contributions, making it easier for the FSF or Apache Foundation to enforce the license in court.
The requirement to sign a CLA has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. It dramatically increases the barrier for contributing to projects that require them, discouraging people from contributing if they aren’t completely committed to the project. It removes the appeal of quickly submitting a fix for a minor issue, while fixing small things is often an easy way to get familiar with a codebase, later making it easier to make bigger contributions.
Aside from making contributions a lot “heavier”, some CLAs also have other implications. Signing your copyright over to the FSF or the ASF isn’t a big issue, because these are entities with the specific goal of facilitating the development of free software. Most companies, however, have a very different goal: profit. If you sign your copyright over to a company like Facebook you’re basically providing free work, allowing them to use your code while they have no obligation to keep their work available to you.
When starting an open source project, consider the consequences of requiring a CLA. If you’re very concerned about the legal status of contributions, consider handing the reign of the project over to an organization like the Apache Foundation or the Free Software Foundation instead of requiring contributors to sign a CLA of your own. There are many people who have signed their NDAs and it makes your intentions clear. However, even if you’re concerned, consider if it’s really that big of a problem. Huge open source projects like Linux and FreeBSD have been running for years without a CLA. They have been very successful and their lack of a CLA hasn’t been a problem.
Found a problem? Have a question? Shoot me an email.