HashiCorp's license change

Posted Aug 17, 2023 18:09 UTC (Thu) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
In reply to: HashiCorp's license change by kpfleming
Parent article: HashiCorp's license change

You could, in principle, also have a CLA that says something like "the company agrees to only relicense your work under an OSI-approved license, or if OSI is later dissolved, then a license which complies with the Open Source Definition, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A [or wherever]." That's probably fine unless you think some tech company is somehow going to buy out OSI (which IMHO is unlikely).

HashiCorp's license change

Posted Aug 17, 2023 21:07 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't know how much help it would be to specify only OSI approved licenses, since that list include permissive licenses. They could relicense your code under the X license and then take that whole product proprietary while still arguing they had kept to the terms of the CLA.

HashiCorp's license change

Posted Aug 18, 2023 13:26 UTC (Fri) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link]

I assume that HashiCorp was already selling proprietary versions and that was what the CLA was for. I think the proposed CLA would make an important difference.