The point of a CLA is to eventually sell proprietary versions. There is objectively no need for a CLA in a fully FOSS/GPL application because the GPL already clarifies everything that’s needed.
well the limitation was against republishing the ea-branded versions. there’s nothing stopping you from doing whatever you want with the regular source tree and all the code is there, even if some of it is not merged…
some form of monetization is pretty much required (due to the hardware required to reverse engineer) and I’m really fond of the yuzu’s and skyline’s “early access” model (since it doesn’t actually paywall anything, and keeps the project fully open)
No CLA is needed to sell open source software. If fact the right to sell is a mandate by both the open source definition and the free software definition.
Also they said no monetisation. That means none at all. Do they want to get sued by Nintendo and pay millions for the rest of their lives?
The point of a CLA is to eventually sell proprietary versions. There is objectively no need for a CLA in a fully FOSS/GPL application because the GPL already clarifies everything that’s needed.
Edit: “suyu also needs to be a product. We need to find ways to monetise the project” Direct quote from https://gitlab.com/suyu-emu/suyu/-/wikis/Contributor-License-Agreement-Policy
What if both the new version and old version of the license has something you disagree with in them?
Then they should have forked different software like Ryujinx.
Oh I was thinking it was an original work.
well the limitation was against republishing the ea-branded versions. there’s nothing stopping you from doing whatever you want with the regular source tree and all the code is there, even if some of it is not merged…
some form of monetization is pretty much required (due to the hardware required to reverse engineer) and I’m really fond of the yuzu’s and skyline’s “early access” model (since it doesn’t actually paywall anything, and keeps the project fully open)
No CLA is needed to sell open source software. If fact the right to sell is a mandate by both the open source definition and the free software definition.
Also they said no monetisation. That means none at all. Do they want to get sued by Nintendo and pay millions for the rest of their lives?
well ryu do monetize their work and haven’t been sued… yet.
Suyu claims to do no monetisation to avoid getting sued but explicitly spells out to sell partially proprietary versions.