Does Less.js need a CLA?

[matthew-dean]

The new thing on open source projects seems to be a contributor license agreement (CLA). I don't know much about them other than they've been added to open source projects like Node and Ace (JS-based editor) and iScroll. So, if Less for sure DOESN'T need a signed agreement with devs, why not? If we had one, what are the implications?

[matthew-dean]

Here's one source discussing CLAs: http://julien.ponge.org/blog/in-defense-of-contributor-license-agreements/

"In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource." Whaa?

[matthew-dean]

A bit more on this: https://gist.github.com/isaacs/6920160

[lukeapage]

see less/less.js#1029

[SomMeri]

"In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource." Whaa?

I think that users of some free google service have been ruled to be customers in Germany and thus customer protection laws applied - e.g. need for support. I can not find it, so I may remember it wrong. It is not sure that decision could be extrapolated to less.js, but I remember very little about case and related maybe-german law.

It would help if he would be more specific and wrote which jurisdictions he means.

However, there is no guarantee that your CLA will be legally valid in those jurisdictions. Most of standards software licenses, or their parts, are not legally binding where I live. They simply do not satisfy requirements the law puts on such legal agreements. For example, if the local law gives me some right (most notably copyright), I can not sign it away.

[SomMeri]

On-topic: I do not mind signing anything, but additional bureaucracy may put off some contributors. If we do this, we should pick up CLA that have been reviewed by lawyers if such exists, otherwise it may turn out to be useless.

[jonschlinkert]

In certain jurisdictions, you could have to provide support for your work… even if it is opensource

Don't believe everything you read on github :-) most of these things we're referencing were written by folks who are working for companies that care about these things (by necessity), because they are corporations with assets to protect.

Unless someone can prove definitively that community-run projects that are non-corporations and non-revenue-generating non-entities with no operating agreement, and no actual persons to hold accountable - and no assets to pursue - could be held liable for anything (and even if someone did feel they were entitled to something, then either a) that person themselves would be just as accountable as any other member of this community, or b) the non-tangible "idea" of LESS would be accountable, since no one works for "LESS", which... well, good luck with that.).

I think we should close this, this is something we shouldn't be concerned with.

[lukeapage]

I thought that by submitting code you are agreeing to whatever license the code is under. A big reason to have a cla is to allow us to legally change or add a license. See the issue I linked above - the main motivation was allowing less to be bundled with WordPress. Its a lot of work but it makes us less restrictive.

It seems a shame we can't just dual license without clas, less has such an open license anyway.