Never Sign A Contributor Licence Agreement

A contributor license agreement is a very dangerous document that any contributor to an open source project could sign, these give the project maintainers far more rights of a project that otherwise would be afforded to them with the software license, some CLAs are better than otehrs but should be generally avoided.

==========Support The Channel==========

==========Resources==========

=========Video Platforms==========

==========Social Media==========

==========Time Stamps==========
0:00 Introduction
0:55 How Licenses Normally Work
2:35 Not All CLAs Are The Same
3:13 How Does That Work?
5:31 The Problem
6:56 The Alternative
9:49 Outro

==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
All my art has was created by Supercozman

#BrodieRobertson #ContributorLicenceAgreement #FOSS

🎵 Ending music

DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation.

[fuseteam]

CLA are useful for larger projects tho, there are often driveby contributors that do a small contribution and then disappear

the linux kernel itself has an issue as a result of this, they can't update the license from GPLv2 to GPLv3 because they'd have to contact thousands of driveby contributors

[The_Ballo]

YOU WARNED US!
WE DIDN'T LISTEN!

[fawzanfawzi]

I read the thumbnail as "This is why class is dangerous" and thinking if this is a programming video.

[foobars]

We should start an open source dev union where all members refuse to sign a CLA. Then anybody wanting to add a CLA is making a decision to not get contributions from any of the unions members, which is a lot bigger hit than one person complaining and saying they won't make contributions.

There could be a separate one for employment contracts where we refuse to sign contracts that restrict our work outside of hours. It isn't just some employers that do this any more, it's MOST OF THEM. It's got to stop! But one person fighting it isn't going to work.

[magnusanderson]

Everyone else is talking about forking audacity to make sure this can't happen. But the problem is that with the CLA, they can make it illegal to fork Audacity, right? If they rewrite the 10% of code they need to or whatever and re-release it under only a proprietary license, then it is illegal to use the 90% of code they got under CLA in any other project right? Or is this not how it works.
I guess if that was how it worked it wouldn't make sense, because then prior forks would retroactively become illegal, but GPLv2 expressely gives forkers a copy of the original license over the code:
"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
But that's how I interpret it when they say the code would change to become proprietary licensed only.

[engelsteinberg]

Fanatic, there still no are a problem, because if the company or new owner makes a "evil" thing you can always fork if needed, so there is no problem and they should change from GPLs (trash) to MPL.

[thingsiplay]

The easiest way to explain it in my opinion is:
1. Your code is not licensed as GPL, you give it to Audacity project.
2. They release the code under GPL.
3. They can decide to release the code under any license, because it is theirs.
Is this correct? Or did I misunderstood something here. This is very similar to the professional scene when you work for a company. They want the power and freedom to do what they want. But that does not make sense in this context of free and open source projects.

[AbhinavKulshreshtha]

I believe CLA has its place. As long as project team is clear and open with CLA with their contributors. I totally hate someone who hides true CLA behind convoluted language.

If there is no CLA, then there are just assumptions and good faith. If there is a CLA I would know wether I should contribute or not.
This may be an unpopular opinion but I personally believe that once code is contributed and merged, it is part of entire codebase. Other than a permanent public record of contribution, and some bounty or gift associated with that contribution, I don't expect or demand anything from project.

DCO is a good alternative, maybe a lighter version of it for small project. But CLA, if its not shady, can actually be good for project and community as whole.

[sentinel]

A few questions: 1) Does that GPLv2 issue affect both the GPLv2-or-later and GPLv2-only? 2) How to get around that GPLv2 relicencing issue if we shouldn't use a CLA? 3) What's the risk to a project owner for not using a DCO or confirming any ownership of contributions?

[sumnerd]

hey Brodie you didn't link to the article about FOSS != non-commercial

[wChris_]

Im just waiting for the Audacity fork, if it doesnt exist already!

[klimenkodr]

You forgot to mention that what you're saying only applies if the project has a copyleft licence in the first place. Also if you get paid to contribute, you normally don't care about that stuff either

[AcidiFy]

I think we need a better license
Once FOSS it should stay FOSS & the only licenses a FOSS project shoukd be allowed to change to are other FOSS licenses

& ONLY the original creators should be allowed to change licenses

Anyway this could be an oppurtunity to fork Audacity & rewrite it in C or RUST or hell even SHELL or ASM
We could add more cool features & make it even more lightweight
While we are at it let's implement the codes in LMMS
It's an open source DAW ( Digital Audio Workstation)

[motiv-drive]

I am not a programmer and i have signed this agreement(Google Individual CLA) by mistake, now how and will it affect me? If yes how can i cancel the agreement. Note : not signed with my private main account but still used somewhat important account that i sometimes use
I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATED HELP

[henninb]

Some one will fork and rename audacity and hopefully soon.

[drishal]

if Audacity goes proprietary, can it still be forked ?

[doooofus]

more like cringetributor license agreement. how bout i sign Bofa instead

[learningbird]

I would fork it. And I hope Audacity code will be forked.