Timeline for Can a CLA allow selling exceptions without allowing relicensing to no longer be FOSS?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2024 at 21:39 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @BartvanIngenSchenau: Definitely not the right wording, because that would encumber the party buying the exception (because they don't want to release their end product under the copyleft). If I understand OP correctly, they only want to guarantee that the dual-licensed project remains dual licensed, with no restrictions on the party who purchases the closed license. | |
| Dec 16, 2024 at 13:54 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @BartvanIngenSchenau I agree, but OP doesn't actually say that, so it's not how I understand the question. | |
| Dec 16, 2024 at 13:17 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | That phrasing of the CLA does not prevent usage of the contribution in a proprietary version that has different functionality than the FOSS version (which is what the OP wants to avoid as I understand the question). The CLA probably needs something along the lines of "Author grants the right to relicense the contribution, under the condition that any non-FOSS software containing the contribution must also be available under a FOSS license". | |
| Dec 16, 2024 at 11:56 | history | answered | MadHatter♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |