Edit: I was worried about possibly needing to change license. For now I will just use a permissive license. The situation is made seemingly complicated by the possible need to use copylefted images, combined with the possible need for using server code (which shouldn't use creative commons) in addition to the static html. I would rather deal with including parts with different licenses (probably not as complicated as I initially thought) instead of contributor license agreements.

Edit 2: Also, license enforcement is not very important for my project.

Edit 3: Now I'm using creative commons zero and making the repo comply with https://reuse.software/

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ShustOne@lemmy.one 32 points 8 months ago

I'd really advise against forcing all code contributions to be copyrighted to you. It doesn't send a great message to contributors. It also gets murky if any libraries are used.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What is the need for this?

[–] Octorine@midwest.social 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Some GPL projects do it. If you find someone infringing, it's easier to sue them if you have one copywrite holder instead of 100.

[–] NekkoDroid@programming.dev 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Generally the only groups I would maybe sign such a CLA in regard to the GPL is: the FSF and the Linux Foundation. Anybody else (especially individuals I don't know) I wouldn't sign any CLA unless my contribution is like a 1 off, trivial patch.

[–] tiny@midwest.social 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not saying I'm a fan but you I think you are looking for a CLA or contributor license agreement

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This is the correct answer.

I'm sure there is a way to make signing the CLA part of the pull request process on Github. I've been asked to do it. Not sure how Github works nowadays, maybe it was part of Github or an external bot.

And I don't agree with the other people here. I think having complete copyright makes some things easier. And if you do an open project, maintain it for years, do 99% of the work... You're allowed being paid with the contributions.

Mind there are other licenses than just the GPL. You could just pick a MIT license / Apache / BSD instead and maybe you don't need the contributors to sign over their copyright anymore, because these licenses cover pretty much everything and transfer it to everyone, including you.

[–] bizdelnick@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

If the license you use is reallu permissive, it does not forbid the change to more restricted (copyleft). You also can use separate licences for code and resourses.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

I was worried about possibly needing to change license.

I'd rather ask the contributors to consent to licensing their code under the new license. You don't need the copyright in the hand of one entity to change license, it's enough if all copyright holders agree.

The situation is made seemingly complicated by the possible need to use copylefted images

WDYM by "images"?

As in art assets? I'm not sure those would even be infectious. I think it's possible to even use non-free assets in a GPL'd application. It may be better to treat them as such to keep the licensing simple though.

Even then, it's usually possible to "upgrade" permissively licensed code (such as Apache 2.0) to a copyleft license as long as the original license's conditions are still met which usually involves denoting which parts of the code is also available under the permissive license.