Don't sign a CLA

Published 2018-10-05 on Drew DeVault's blog

A large minority of open-source projects come with a CLA, or Contributor License Agreement, and require you to sign one before they’ll merge your patch. These agreements typically ask you to go above and beyond the rights you afford the project by contributing under the license the software is distributed with. And you should never sign one.

Free and open source software licenses grant explicit freedoms to three groups: the maintainers, the users, and the contributors. An important freedom is the freedom to make changes to the software and to distribute these changes to the public. The natural place to do so is by contributing to the upstream project, something a project should be thankful for. A CLA replaces this gratitude with an attempt to weaken these freedoms in a manner which may stand up to the letter of the license, but is far from the spirit.

A CLA is a kick in the groin to a contributor’s good-faith contribution to the project. Many people, myself included, contribute to open source projects under the assumption that my contributions will help serve a project which continues to be open source in perpetuity, and a CLA provides a means for the project maintainers to circumvent that. What the CLA is actually used for is to give the project maintainers the ability to relicense your work under a more restrictive software license, up to and including making it entirely closed source.

We’ve seen this happen before. Consider the Redis Labs debacle, where they adopted the nonfree1 Anti-Commons Clause2, and used their CLA to pull along any external contributions for the ride. As thanks for the generous time invested by their community into their software, they yank it out from underneath it and repurpose it to make money with an obscenely nonfree product. Open source is a commitment to your community. Once you make it, you cannot take it back. You don’t get the benefits associated with being an open source project if you have an exit hatch. You may argue that it’s your right to do what you want with your project, but making it open source is explicitly waiving that right.

So to you, the contributor: if you are contributing to open source and you want it to stay that way, you should not sign a CLA. When you send a patch to a project, you are affording them the same rights they afforded you. The relationship is one of equals. This is a healthy balance. When you sign a CLA, you give them unequal power over you. If you’re scratching an itch and just want to submit the patch in good faith, it’s easy enough to fork the project and put up your changes in a separate place. This is a right afforded to you by every open source license, and it’s easy to do. Anyone who wants to use your work can apply your patches on top of the upstream software. Don’t sign away your rights!


Additional reading: GPL as the Best Licence – Governance and Philosophy

Some responses to the discussion around this article:

What about the Apache Foundation CLA? This CLA is one of the better ones, because it doesn’t transfer copyright over your work to the Apache Foundation. I have no beef with clauses 1 and 3-8. However, term 2 is too broad and I would not sign this CLA.

What about the Linux kernel developer certificate of origin? I applaud the Linux kernel’s approach here. It covers their bases while still strongly protecting the rights of the patch owner. It’s a short statement with little legalese and little fanfare to agreeing to it (just add “Signed-off By” to your commit message). I approve.

  1. Free as in freedom 

  2. Call me petty, but I can’t in good faith call it the “Commons Clause” when its purpose is to remove software from the commons. 

Have a comment on one of my posts? Start a discussion in my public inbox by sending an email to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox@lists.sr.ht [mailing list etiquette]


Articles from blogs I follow around the net

Contributors Summit 2019

For the third year in a row, the Go team and contributors convened the day before GopherCon to discuss and plan for the future of the Go project. The event included self-organizing into breakout groups, a town-hall style discussion about the proposal process…

via The Go Programming Language Blog August 15, 2019

Updates in July 2019

This post gives an overview of the recent updates to the Writing an OS in Rust blog and the used libraries and tools. Since I'm still very busy with my master thesis, I haven't had the time to work on a new post. But there were quite a few maintena…

via Writing an OS in Rust August 2, 2019

What is RISC?

This is an archive of a series of comp.arch USENET posts by John Mashey in the early to mid 90s, on the defnition of reduced instruction set computer (RISC). Contrary to popular belief, RISC isn't about the number of instructions! This is archived her…

via Dan Luu July 29, 2019

Generated by openring