You mean I screwed over those 0.1% of commits in EmailEngine (because the other 0.1% is from the Github Actions bot writing the changelog)? Everything else is my own code.
For over 14 years, I've been actively developing Nodemailer, a hugely popular project. There has been no CLA in place, and the main outside commits I get are typo fixes during Hacktoberfest. This is why I'm still the owner of 98% of the committed code in Nodemailer. Usually, if I do not fix or build something, no one else will either.
> You mean I screwed over those 0.1% of commits in EmailEngine (because the other 0.1% is from the Github Actions bot writing the changelog)?
I mean... yeah? Correct me if I'm wrong but you profited off their labor without compensating them, right? Why should the number of people you did that to make it less wrong? Obviously a corpo making bajillions of dollars without paying you sucks, but by sheer number of people negatively affected, it's still the same lol, in this case you're just the one with the bag, instead of a corporation.
Well, I guess you're right in a way. While there are no meaningful outside commits in EmailEngine, there are _some_ commits, even if these have minimal impact, by people who do not get paid for it, while I do.
I'm not judging you for this, btw. I find it extremely difficult to meaningfully measure in a dollar amount someone's contribution to a FOSS project, once monetized. The whole thing is messy. Honestly in general I find it quite difficult to measure labor value at all, which is why I guess basically every corporation on earth just lets "the market" decide, but that feels too arbitrary to me, and "the market" doesn't seem real when it gets to arbitrarily pay someone differently based on whether their passport says "India" or "USA."
I've been experimenting with just throwing my hands up and doing flat profit share, but we haven't really had an opportunity to really try this at scale (for a bunch of boring reasons), but I'm curious how it'll look. I don't think we'll have the crazy huge ratios you do on your FOSS though so I can see why that wouldn't be feasible for someone in your position.
I would not say that in your case, but the problem is that if a project has a CLA there could be a lot of commits from other people and then it would be screwing them over.
The problem for the developer considering a CLA is that if you take any contributions at all, you now have a community of people who A) understand your source code and B) have had their contributions rolled into your proprietary product, possibly against their expectations and possibly leaving them rather upset.
With 0.1% of commits it's not a likely problem, but if developers are making significant contributions then there's a good chance they'll fork your product as of the last LGPL commit and keep developing it as a direct competitor. It's safer to just not take contributions at all.
I'm not picking on you, FOSS projects aren't really set up for anything like shared revenue yet, and almost nobody's thinking about it.
But in the future, monetized FOSS projects need to pay out to their contributors. By default, contributors own copyright to the code they share, and forcing them to surrender that for free won't be acceptable.
For over 14 years, I've been actively developing Nodemailer, a hugely popular project. There has been no CLA in place, and the main outside commits I get are typo fixes during Hacktoberfest. This is why I'm still the owner of 98% of the committed code in Nodemailer. Usually, if I do not fix or build something, no one else will either.
reply