90
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
90 points (100.0% liked)
Linux and Tech News
3650 readers
9 users here now
This is where all the News about Linux and Linux adjacent things goes. We'll use some of the articles here for the show! You can watch or listen at:
You can also get involved at our forum here on Lemmy:
Or just get the most recent episode of the show here:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
They use the classic AGPL + license assignment CLA combo.
This lets them relicense community contributions however they want, including making them proprietary. Everyone has to abide by the AGPL terms, apart from them. This puts them in a privileged position compared to the rest of the community, which I don't like.
Edit: @artyom@piefed.social pointed to a commit that removes the CLA from many places in the repo. They didn't (forgot to?) remove it from the
LICENSING.mdfile, which is where I found the requirement when digging around the repository.When I saw the requirement in
LICENSING.md, I took that at face value. I think that was a fair assumption to make, but I'm still sorry that I got it wrong, especially as this became the top comment.Fuck. They were my only hope. It's really good, what a shame.
How about stoat? It's AGPL but doesn't seem to have the CLA clause.
What? The CLA clause is irrelevant. You can make modifications to Fluxer or any AGPL project without signing a CLA (just make them in a fork that adheres to the AGPL).