nostr:npub1evueeq5nd8889t6hlpgssh3x45a2q4sv9trffrux3jssamshwecqrzuf5t nostr:npub1asgpw2tdqj8lf7hc9rvll65cpkamvh2y7v43xypme5ln083m48hq50p40g I see the huge risk to contributors with CLAs but how can a project reasonably switch/upgrade its license (e.g. GPL2->AGPL3) at some point in the future without them? Or am I overthinking this?
nostr:npub1asgpw2tdqj8lf7hc9rvll65cpkamvh2y7v43xypme5ln083m48hq50p40g Licenses that are used without a CLA are good, especially if they include copyleft provisions.
Discussion
nostr:npub1hqvhusmc8r9mharcgqtl92x5gufma2gmmcamkse72f4l0dsnqnksdxd5hy nostr:npub1evueeq5nd8889t6hlpgssh3x45a2q4sv9trffrux3jssamshwecqrzuf5t nostr:npub1asgpw2tdqj8lf7hc9rvll65cpkamvh2y7v43xypme5ln083m48hq50p40g GPLv3 is explicitly compatible with AGPL, though I don't believe that includes relicensing, but you could make future parts of GPLv3 code licensed under AGPL alongside the GPLv3 code.
nostr:npub1hqvhusmc8r9mharcgqtl92x5gufma2gmmcamkse72f4l0dsnqnksdxd5hy
Modern licenses have upgrade language in the license, and non-reciprocal licenses are readily co-licensable. It's only single company projects using strong copyleft licenses for a scareware strategy that really need the ability to pivot away from unwanted community members like this.
nostr:npub1asgpw2tdqj8lf7hc9rvll65cpkamvh2y7v43xypme5ln083m48hq50p40g