• chameleon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    No, it comes together with a CLA being required to contribute. In other words, Canonical (and only Canonical) is still allowed to sell exceptions to the AGPL.

    Yes, the post says there is no copyright assignment. That’s extremely carefully chosen wording to avoid mention of the CLA which was made required in the same commit as the license change. It’s “just” a super extended license that lets them do whatever, not assignment.

    • fossphi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Quite the same case as with matrix. I very much prefer AGPL over all the other permissive licences, but I don’t know, the CLA leaves a bad taste in the mouth

    • Goun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Can somebody explain in a few words what’s CLA? Does it limit contributors rights?

        • Goun@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Shit that’s awful, so they could theorically change the lisence to whatever they want at any time

    • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I tried reading through it and I don’t understand completely if they reserve the right to relicense in a way that is against the interest of contributor.
      They say that the contributor retains the copyright and can do whatever they want with the code they contributed, which is good, they also say that they can sublicense your contributions, which, as far as I know, means they couldn’t make it more permissive, but only more restrictive, at least that is the case with Creative Commons