[1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree
[2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html
> anytime you see a CLA, you see the true intentions of the project. A project that will always be FOSS won't have a need for a CLA.
If there are conditions to the statement, it isn't "anytime you see a CLA".
Many CLAs are just a hassle (basically, DCO that has to be reviewed by the legal department). But a lot are asymmetrical in a substantial way and the original developer gets to play by different rules than the rest. CLAs in the second category tend to be problematic.
Even that is not a completely clear indicator because in some cases, the asymmetry is only intended to help with potential future relicensing in alignment with the project's goals, and not to enable commercialization (either today or at some point in the future). Some organizations have resisted direct commercialization of the code they have been entrusted with for decades, so that can happen even with an asymmetrical CLA.
For many contributors, they're ok giving full ownership of their contributions to a project owner on the owner's terms. Some contributors may not be ok with that of course, but it doesn't mean that every project owner has nefarious plans with said code ownership.
And that's why "open source" is a really bad term that no one should use unironically, unless they want to confuse the hell out of people.
There are protective (copyleft) licenses, and there are permissive licenses - and they're very different beasts. And it's, like, software licensing 101.
> that want to go from LGPL to MIT or something
I find this extremely weird.
In a sane world, picking a copyleft license must mean that you care about user freedoms and want to make sure they're respected no matter what happens. Because that's the whole point of picking a copyleft license - not about letting people peek or tweak some code, not about social brownie points, and most certainly not about marketing campaigns - but about granting users their freedoms.
Either people get confused about "open source" and pick... I don't know, whatever looks cool, without even understanding what they're doing; or they're giving up on their principles when they smell the money.
I can understand wanting to go from, say, GPL to AGPL, or GPLv2 to GPLv3[+] - it would make sense, as it all goes in line of protecting freedoms. But LGPL to MIT is truly a weird one.
Copyleft licenses were the default choice at some point in time, but then in the '10s most big projects seemed to pick a permissive license, and many switched.
This is a personal bias and disregards others' definition of true do-whatever-you-want freedom. Different project owners may think differently on what free means and alter the license to respect their principles (and may consider copyleft to be the restrictive/anti-free mistake made early on based on these same kinds of personal biases).
And many contributors don't really care what the project owner does with their code and the CLA lets them delegate responsibility.
Someone who is has a strong preference for copyleft licences may not want to contribute to a project with a permissive license.
The intent may not be for the project owners to use the code in proprietary software, but it would be to allow someone to do so.
However that would also mean that the core project couldn't accept your changes without the CLA since that would also bind them to never switching the license or relicensing your contributions for an enterprise license.
... I think. My head hurts when trying to consider the implications for CLAs and AGPL and the endless debates that lawyers could have over this.
CLA = Contributor License Agreement
Good examples are React from Facebook, and TypeScript from Microsoft. Both require a CLA. But these projects are never going to go closed-source. They are complements to the companies' core business strategies.
There's this balance between being a project forever run out of someone's garage and actually growing into a larger and more used system. I'd say the line is dilineated by many factors: who is the project's primary user? Enterprise? Devs? How much money is changing hands? What's the business model? Is there investment involved? How restrictive is the primary license? How restrictive is the CLA?
I think any open-source project that has aspirations to actually make money for the creators is shooting themselves in the foot without a CLA. And it's fine to judge them for this, but we live in a system where people have to extract value out of this shit even if it's against their ethos.
If people truly and ultimately believe in open-source, then the most logical conclusion is that capitalism does not allow for open source and that must be changed. Fighting things at the license level can only delay the inevitable. But people want to have their cake and eat it too: "I want the system to stay the same AND I want open-source creators to keep pumping out stuff for free forever."
