But the point is that with a CLA it can be taken proprietary at any time, that's the whole point of having one.
... and this piece of nonsense keeps irking me every time I read it. What crazy business model would that be, developing something for years in the open just so you can, some day, suddenly (after a super special code commit or something) close it up?
You don't seem to get the business model of companies like Qt (and others). Some of their customers' legal departments insists on not having any (l/a)GPL software. Fine, they pay for that 'privilege', that helps keep Digia paying hundreds of people to work on that software. But they do not, ever, intend to stop developing in the open. Why would they abandon a successful, smart business model where they work with a wide community of contributors to build great software? Again, Qt - 40% contributions outside of Digia. How stupid does one have to be to loose that?
I totally get that there is a fear that a potential, future owner would do that. Eg a Oracle that buys Qt. But THAT is exactly where the KDE Free Qt Foundation comes in so that risk is mitigated. And it could still be a realistic fear if this was throw-over-the-wall open source, like Android. But it isn't - Qt is developed fully in the open. Quite some sections are now maintained by people outside of Digia - Digia engineers have to engage these community members to get their code into Qt. Just as it should be.
You're just spreading FUD with this. And I'm quite sure you're aware of that, too, I'm sure I didn't tell you anything new.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds