> "We need you to "sign" a contributor license agreement (CLA) first that assigns us ownership so we are able to include it in this software. We don't yet have a CLA, but we are working on it and we will be able to accept your contributions as soon as we do."
Apparently, requiring a CLA isn't as uncommon as I initially thought, but I'm still curious why some projects require this but others do not. What about their business model / licensing choices necessitate a CLA?
It's common for open source libraries that use split licencing. By assigning copywrite ownership to the project, they are able to licence your contribution however they like.
Without a CLA, any licence change, sub-licencing or commercial terms would need to be negotated with every individual that has contributed code to the project
> "We need you to "sign" a contributor license agreement (CLA) first that assigns us ownership so we are able to include it in this software. We don't yet have a CLA, but we are working on it and we will be able to accept your contributions as soon as we do."
Apparently, requiring a CLA isn't as uncommon as I initially thought, but I'm still curious why some projects require this but others do not. What about their business model / licensing choices necessitate a CLA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement