By having a CLA in place, we ensure we have the hands free to avoid any further such issues: the problem can't arise again. Yes, it does allow us to re-license the software, or even negociate specific licensing terms with partners, which sounds quite fair to me. Also, this adds to the range of theoretical possibilities, but we currently have no plans to monetize Opam.
Le lundi 18 janvier 2016, 18:31:32 Daniel Bünzli a écrit : > Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 18:01, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > > Granted, a CLA is not the only solution to the problem. But it is one. > > So could you please explain us why you think it is a *good* one ? > > The only benefits I see here are for OCamlPro's own IP rights. > > I see however a lot of disadvantages for the whole OCaml community. For > example a CLA for opam may reduce the chances that other companies allow > their employees to work on opam. I am curious and would be glad to hear more about it: I intuitively don't see much difference between submitting a contribution BSD-licensed or under the terms of the CLA, from the company's point of view. Am I wrong ? > As for myself I wouldn't sign such a CLA; not only for the unfair terms I > mentioned in the thread you linked to but also since I do not understand > the bounds of the terms, have no lawyer and do not want nor have the money > to hire one. I am sorry to hear that: even though your contributions are probably quantitatively too small to raise copyright issues, I know that Opam is a project that matters to you, and those have been highly appreciated. Anyway, let's wait until have more feedback to make a decision on this. Best, Louis _______________________________________________ opam-devel mailing list opam-devel@lists.ocaml.org http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
