Comment by Huppie

4 days ago

Maybe not technically correct but it's still the gist of this line, no?

> Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Company, and to recipients of software distributed by Company related hereto, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute, Your Contributions and such derivative works (the “Contributor License Grant”).

They are allowed to use your contribution in a derivative work under another license and/or sublicense your contribution.

It's technically not copyright reassignment though.

5 comments

Huppie

Reply
withinrafael  4 days ago

Yes, you grant the entity you've submitted a contribution to, to use (not own) your contribution in whatever it ends up in. That was the whole point of the developer's contribution right?

  • pie_flavor  4 days ago

    The CLA has you granting them a non-open-source license. It permits them to change the Zed license to a proprietary one while still incorporating your contributions. It doesn't assign copyright ownership, but your retaining the ability to release your contribution under a different license later has little practical value.

    • withinrafael  3 days ago

      Isn't that a good thing? As a dev submitting something to them, I want my feature/bugfix to stay with the product.

      Are you suggesting that devs should be able to burden the original contribution with conditions, like "they can't use my code without permission 5 years later if you relicense"? That's untenable, isn't it?

      I don't know how else you would accept external contributions for software without the grant in the CLA. Perhaps I'm not creative enough!

      1 reply →