Skip to main content
17 votes

Implicit licensing when contributing to an open source project

In my understanding, my claims are completely baseless, because the moment I submitted the PR, I implicitly licensed my changes under MIT, because that is the license of the project. Is this the ...
Bart van Ingen Schenau's user avatar
10 votes

Implicit licensing when contributing to an open source project

I rather thought this would be a duplicate question, but I can't currently find anything that fits exactly. Outbound=inbound is a traditional custom and practice in the free-software community, but it'...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.5k
6 votes
Accepted

Is it possible for the .NET open source code to be "rugpulled", or relicensed?

I'm wondering if this CLA allows the .NET Foundation, and/or Microsoft, to relicense the code under a non-open-source license The copyright licence in the CLA, s4(1), says that You grant .NET ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.5k
6 votes

Is a CLA necessary?

A CLA is indeed not necessary for PDF4QT to use your contribution under the terms of the LGPL. The main purposes of this CLA are twofold: to potentially use the contribution under terms other than ...
apsillers's user avatar
  • 36.3k
3 votes

Is it possible for the .NET open source code to be "rugpulled", or relicensed?

The CLA is a license between you and the .NET Foundation, applicable to your contribution, and yes allows the project owners to go ahead and relicense your contributions under any licensing model they ...
Peter Moore's user avatar
1 vote
Accepted

License like LGPL-3.0, but owner can sell source to 3rd party freely and contributors can't say no or revoke code

From the discussion in chat, it looks like a dual-licensing scheme will work best for you. You will distribute your code under LGPL, but you will also sell a proprietary license for the early version ...
MadHatter's user avatar
  • 49.5k

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible