TL;DR: I wish you & the Jujutsu project well.

I hope the project sees continued success as another step into a world where we can acknowledge that developers are human; and, that--rather than just telling those humans they should "git gud"--we recognize that it's okay to tell our tools to "git gud" and then support the humans who contribute to making that happen.

(And, for those who fear such a world will be lacking in developers who "gut gid", remember: nobody is stopping you from still helping those humans "git gud", it just might require you to "git gud" at "gudding gittering".)

(And, yes, one day I also hope that world also doesn't require a signed CLA. :) )

----

> The CLA may not be as bad as you think.

Unfortunately it is at least as bad as I think. :)

While writing my previous comment I did consider going into more detail around the CLA but didn't--in part because succinctness made the CLA remark more impactful; in part because my comment was lengthy already; in part because I was tired of typing; and, probably, on reflection, in part as bait. :)

For context around the sentiment of this reply: I do appreciate you taking the time to reply to my previous comment & the effort you've put into Jujutsu; I support the Jujutsu project's goal; and, I would like to see it succeed. If I didn't view the project positively I wouldn't take the time to reply.

I was already aware the CLA didn't include copyright transfer and had checked the current information in the README to verify the current status hadn't changed before I wrote my previous comment. I had a recollection there had been previous CLA discussion but didn't go looking for it.

I've now read the discussion you linked as well as (some or all) of the other discussions/issues linked from it.

I'm glad to see others who view the Jujutsu project & its potential in a positive light have raised their concerns around the CLA and the CLA's negative impact on the project--even if I might wish some had expressed themselves... differently. :)

[Aside: I would have added (well, some of :) ) this comment to the GH discussion directly but MFA-related reasons preclude that currently. Feel free to quote from this comment over there if that's useful.]

----

While I'm glad the corporate "fad" of adding CLA requirements to projects has died down in comparison to a few years ago, one of my concerns has always been that the "costs" associated with requiring a CLA often have very poor visibility. Most people who have objections to a CLA requirement simply don't interact with projects that have them.

This obviously makes it difficult for project maintainers to argue for removal of CLA requirements because they can't point to the negative impacts that exist.

That's one reason why I specifically mentioned the CLA in my previous comment, so that if someone was wanting to argue for removal of a CLA requirement within a company then it would at least provide one external data point in support of the argument (as small as it might be) to which they could point.

----

While other people may have different reasons, for context, my primary objections to the requirement for a CLA boil down to: (i) legal liability; and, (ii) power dynamics.

(i) Based on my reading of the CLA[0][1] the motivation for Google to require contributors to sign seems to be a desire to move legal liability from Google onto the contributor.

By signing the CLA the contributor appears to accept a burden in perpetuity that: impacts every interaction[2] with an unbounded number of entities in an unbounded set of situations (see 1.); makes multiple representations about the licenses granted (see 2. & 3.) that presumably incur legal liability if they not are not accurate (see 4. & 5.); requires communication with Google in a manner ("notify") that is undefined in the document, about an almost unbounded set of items ("any facts or circumstances of which you become aware", "inaccurate in any respect"), again, in perpetuity (see 8.).

Now, at this point, the typical 10x legal scholar HN reader might be thinking, "Typical uninformed software developer who thinks law operates like code, clearly the CLA doesn't mean that...". Which brings me to...

(ii) From my perspective, in a situation where one party is requesting another party to sign a legally binding document (with the assumption their goal is not to take advantage of the second party[3][4]), they have at minimum a moral obligation to remind the second party that the document is legally binding, that signing it brings obligations, and that the second party should seek legal advice from an attorney they have a client-attorney relationship with and who is acting on their behalf to be informed about the potential cost(s) and/or benefit(s) associated with signing the document.

Especially if there is a significant power differential[5] between the two parties.

Particularly when the larger entity is making the request of an individual who is giving them a gift of value.

Even more so when the larger entity is specifically making the claim to the smaller party giving them a gift of value, that the document "is for your protection as a Contributor"[9][10]!

[...continued...]

----

[-1] Comment too long footnotes to follow...