"Have you thought on requiring contributions to be dual licensed MIT + AGPL? This would avoid you the need of a CLA because you can use MIT to incorporate the contribution to your cloud solution and/or to sell a license to a corporation that would like to keep their modifications closed. This would also lower the barrier to contributors due they don't need to sign the CLA"
Does anyone know or have any examples of how this is done?
@markosaric Do you want to sell licenes to corporations that would like to keep their modifications closed? Do you want make any such modifications yourself? If not, don't worry about CLAs!
That's my advice. You've got enough opportunity for profit!
This goes both for private licensing or a future change for the general project.
I've heard about people detesting CLA's exactly because it gives the project a backdoor. They are happy to contribute AGPL code but the risk of their contributions getting used later under another license is unacceptable to them.
@markosaric I don't understand dual licensing as both something permissive like MIT and something demanding like AGPL. What's the rationale for it? AGPL provides a bunch of assurances but surely you can just "get around" them by saying "we're using this software under the terms of the MIT license".
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.