The difference isn't relevant 99% of the time, but it comes up if the maintainership of a work tries to re-license the work. Works without assigned ownership cannot practically be re-licensed, as you'd have to get individual consent from all owning parties.
This came up a lot when GPLv3 was introduced — many projects wanted to migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3, but couldn't, because they never acquired legal ownership of contributed code, and so didn't have the right to re-license the contributors' code.
Yeah I understand this. Hence there _is_ a difference and maybe one I don't prefer. I understand why Google would want this, but maybe I view Google's inability to relicense my code as a feature and not a bug.
In any case, I think the people involved in this back and forth essentially understand the state of things. I only seems some of us disagree on whether we should care. If people want to sign CLA's with Google that's their prerogative. If they understand what they're doing, more power to them. I don't like that Google has special preference over other actors, but that's just me.
edit:
> This came up a lot when GPLv3 was introduced — many projects wanted to migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3, but couldn't, because they never acquired legal ownership of contributed code, and so didn't have the right to re-license the contributors' code.
Sure there are a lot of people who didn't like that, but maybe those who contributed their code under the GPLv2 never would have done so if they knew it would change to GPLv3 (not that he's more important than others, but Torvalds seems to fall in this camp)? Their wishes should be respected. Besides in those specific cases the projects could have avoided it by only accepting code licensed as "GPLv2 or later" so a CLA wasn't really required in that case anyway (though obviously that only applies to this specific GPLv2 -> GPLv3 case and not more generally).
Imagine a country with direct democracy, where a 100% consensus of all citizens is required for any law to be passed. Now imagine that a single citizen of that country decides to go live in the mountains, out of contact with the rest of the country, but still legally alive and legally a citizen, and therefore legally a "required" vote. The legislative process grinds to a halt!
This is, of course, why no government is run that way. And it's equally silly to run a FOSS project that way. Even if literally everybody likes some change, just one contributor failing to get in contact means you're stuck without the ability to make the change.
Maybe yes and maybe no.
> ...The legislative process grinds to a halt!
You're being a bit overly dramatic. The software development process can continue just as it did before, they just can't retroactively change the license on code they do not own. It is true that maybe the project might die partially due to a lack of adoption due to people not liking the license, but he project may die for many other reasons as well. Also the project isn't gone anyway. It continues just as before.
> This is, of course, why no government is run that way. And it's equally silly to run a FOSS project that way. Even if literally everybody likes some change, just one contributor failing to get in contact means you're stuck without the ability to make the change.
There is one government, but there are many competing software projects. If one goes into decline it's not the end of the world. Besides the software project is not gone, it's still there. The fact that there are so many popular projects without the ability to change their licenses shows that the model can work just fine.
Look if you want to start a project and require a CLA be my guest. If you want to join a project with a CLA, go ahead. Just be aware that CLA's will deter some contributors. Weigh these trade-offs however you wish.
Bingo! Google will relicense Fuchsia to OEMs etc. under new terms if they want to include Google services.
Google establishes with the public a warranty- and guarantee-free use license. If someone feels they've been harmed by the software, they're prevented by the open source license from suing Google, but they're (more importantly) also giving up their right to sue the individual contributors.
At the same time, vendors want to be able to hold suppliers accountable for support and warranty on products that are supplied. Permitting sublicensing allows Google to sell the software to OEMs and vendors with support agreements that allow those vendors to hold Google responsible for that support (rather than the individual contributors).
There's a lot of complaint about the sublicensing going on, but I think most vendors aren't going to build systems where they can't get support, and I don't think contributors actually want to be liable under tort law for the code they provided for free.
Then again, maybe the objection is to giving code to Google that Google can profit from. I guess that's fair, but you don't _have_ to contribute code and you're also not prevented from sublicensing and trying to turn a profit yourself.
(edit: typo)
