docs: stop requiring a CLA that was removed - #2211
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
All three READMEs say "Contributions require signing a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). See CLA.md for details." That link is a 404: commit
5ea49b7b3("Remove CLA", 22 Jun 2026) deletedCLA.md,.github/workflows/cla.ymlandsignatures/cla.json, 303 lines in total.So the licence statement asks contributors to sign a document that does not exist, and the workflow that used to check it is gone too. This drops the sentence from the English, Vietnamese and Chinese READMEs.
Nothing else changes. The project stays AGPL-3.0.
Why this matters beyond the dead link
Whether to run a CLA is worth deciding deliberately rather than leaving as a stale sentence, because it is the thing that decides who can change the licence later.
Without a CLA, the maintainer cannot relicense other people's contributions. That is already concrete:
Plugins/TableProPluginKit/has 10,065 lines, and 188 of them belong to three outside contributors:That matters if TableProPluginKit is ever put under a permissive licence so third parties can write drivers without their driver becoming AGPL, which is the shape Grafana and MongoDB both use. Doing that needs permission from those two contributors, or a rewrite of their 148 lines. It gets harder with every plugin PR merged under no CLA.
This PR does not decide that. It only stops the README claiming a requirement the project does not have.