[Flow] RFC: Drop CLA for Flow and Neos

[Helmut Hummel]

Hi Dominique!

On 14.07.14 23:33, Dominique Feyer wrote:

> I think that GPL can be a blocker too.
> LGPL vs MIT is maybe a more complexe subject. But my personal favorite is MIT definitively. You can see big project like Symfony all component and the CMF have move to MIT.

Personally, I love the idea behind GPL. Ideally it forces companies that 
make money by selling propriatary software which is based on the free 
work of others to contribute back to free software. However the software 
world is a bit more complicated than that nowadays, especially in our 
domain (web/cms/php). This dilemma is concisely discribed in a GNU document:

"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are 
reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. 
The most common case is when a free library's features are readily 
available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. 
In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular 
advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library."[1]

So taking this point of view means, that it does not make sense for 
Flow/Neos to use GPL if there are enough other open alternatives with 
premissive licences to choose from. As I understand it, this is the 
reason why Flow licence currently is LGPL, while Neos licence is GPL.

Taking this point of view and choosing LGPL or MIT for Neos would also 
mean giving up on the idea that Neos can ever be innovative enough that 
propriotary software "must" use it and by doing so contribute back to 
free software.

> I’m a big open source fan, but I think that freedom doesn’t support limit. And GPL enforce limitation of what you can do with a piece of code and is a tainting licence, so that’s not really freedom.

I would be "all in" for limiting the freedom of companies with money, 
making more money by using the free work of others ;)

> About the CLA, if we have a more permissive licence we can drop it. Any contributor is welcome. Having to sign a document to push a single line of code can be a big barrier. I think about small contribution, small documentation update, …

If we think a premissive licence is a fit for our porducts and our 
community, then I would also say, that the CLA does not make sense any 
more. However, taking what I have written above into consideration, the 
decision is not an easy one.

> So my 2 cents, is move everything to MIT and drop the CLA.

However, if moving both projects to MIT would be the price to pay for 
dropping the CLA, I'd currently be at the point to pay it.

Kind regards,
Helmut

[1]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html

-- 
Helmut Hummel
Release Manager TYPO3 6.0
TYPO3 Core Developer, TYPO3 Security Team Member

TYPO3 .... inspiring people to share!
Get involved: typo3.org