Yes, that is VERY common in CLA’s. In fact, I have nver seen a CLA that did not grant increased rights to the contribution than what the contributor gets to the product as a whole- that is the whole point of a CLA. And the Defold CLA is no exceptions:
- Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Defold and to recipients of software distributed by Defold 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.
In other words, ‘Defold’ to do whatever they want with the contribution you make, but the Defold License does not grant the same freedom back to the contributor in regards to the project. This is exactly what I mean by putting the contributor on unequal standing to the Foundation. (I will also point out what appears to be a significant flaw- the CLA does not define what “Defold” is, when it grants to “Defold” the rights. Is “Defold” a person? Is it the “Defold Foundation”? If my name is “Defold”, are you granting me a perpetual, royalty free license to your work?)
Now, if “Defold” means the Defold Foundation, and given the translation of the Foundation legal documents offered by @britzl, it could be argued that the Foundation can’t commercialize the code either. But that is not part of the CLA.
I haven’t really followed the Godot developers response, so I can’t comment on that. But I disagree with the claim that not allowing commercialized distributions of the engine protects contributors.
PostgresSQL is made available under a permissive, Open Source license- allowing many to sell various distributions of it- and they have a thriving community of contributors, users, and others.
The Linux Kernel is available under an Open Source license, and is commercialized by Microsoft (Windows Subsystem for Linux) , Google (Chrome OS and Android) AWS, Red Hat, Canonical, and countless others. Yet Linux has a thriving ecosystem of contributors.
Godot, Blender, Firefox, and countless other Open Source projects are available under Open Source licenses, can be commercialized, and yet have thriving communities of contributors.
None of these contributions are “negated” just because some body else could possibly use their code to create commercial value- all contributors have the same rights to do with the project as they desire, in accordance with the project license, including making a commercial version.
Thank you for that clarification. Now, I am not a lawyer, nor am I particularly familiar with Swedish law, but it sounds like the Defold Foundation is restricted from requiring compensation/remuneration for the source code. This does not sound like it restricts them from allowing third parties to charge for the source. In fact, if a court were asked to define open source, I could easily see them using the OSI’s definition, or something similiar to it- but I don’t intend to re-hash that debate here- lets focus on how to best achieve the Foundations purpose!
I’m really not sure what your complaint is- I have read and understood every term that was made available to me . I have not “complained” about those terms, and in fact have repeatedly thanked those involved for their work. I have labored to focus the discussion on how to best achieve the goals of the Defold Foundation moving forward. I have pointed out why the current license situation won’t work for me- and countless other potential community members, and I have highlighted other successful projects that do not have the same restrictions in support of my position.
Again, and to be very clear- I want to Thank the Defold developers and contributors, the Defold Foundation Board, King, and everyone else involved. Making the engine available to create commercial games for free is very generous.
I want to emphasize that the main point in creating this thread is not to complain, but to discuss how to best achieve the Foundations goals- particularly in regards to building a healthy ecosystem of contributors, users, and community members. Another purpose was to better understand the the Foundation, the License, the CLA, and the logic behind it all. I think this latter purpose has largely been achieved.
So thank you for engaging with me and sharing the CLA. Thank you for working on the Defold Engine and providing it under generous terms. I stand by my initial claim that the purposes of the Foundation would better be fulfilled by using an OSI approved Open Source License, such as the Apache 2.0 license.
Such a license would ensure that everyone is on equal footing, it would allow the community more freedom to potentially put food on the table with different business models around leveraging their contributions, and would ensure compatibility with other software a packages and distribution schemes. Based on my understanding of the Foundations goals and the founding documents, this would not violate the Foundations obligation to make the code available to the public without remuneration, but would better achieve the purpose of supporting the open source community and the use of open licenses- especially since it would make the Defold license much more compatible with the open source community and other popular open licenses, and open source code.