(Replying to PARENT post)

They legally have to ask every contributor. The exception/loophole used by big companies (but also FSF for example) is that every contributor had to sign a CLA where they legally reassign ownership of their code to the project owner.
👤taway1237🕑2y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

This is why you should never sign a CLA; it allows later relicensing of your work to nonfree licenses.

Linux doesn’t have a CLA, and it’s the most popular operating system in the world.

👤sneak🕑2y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

CLA’s don’t fully transfer ownership (hence the L) and don’t unilaterally allow changing the software license. Though that does of course depend on the nature of each CLA since there’s no singular contract associated.

A CTA (transfer vs license) does allow unilateral license changes after the fact.

👤dagmx🕑2y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

The FSF has been (slowly) moving away from CLAs though [0]

[0] https://heathermeeker.com/2021/06/01/fsf-drops-assignment-re...

👤Zambyte🕑2y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

The other "loophole" is not to relicense, but instead for a corporation to make their own future contributions with a different license. This doesn't work too well from GPL-like licenses, but is fine for file-based copyleft.
👤jen20🕑2y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Could one have a kind of CLA where a contributor licenses their work under ANY license that meets the open source definition?
👤hwc🕑2y🔼0🗨️0