AFAIK there is an implicit understanding that everything is licensed under the AGPL, except the freeciv/freeciv subdir which is under GPLv2+ and maybe some libraries like Three.js (if it's still there) that have their own license. This is documented by the LICENSE file at the top of the respective folder hierarchies. Attribution can very well be handled through commit messages. (Unfortunately attribution is lost for most of the freeciv/freeciv code, because they just copied the code without history and some commits were copied without using Co-Authored-By. Same could be claimed for Freeciv tarballs however.)cazfi wrote:I were been put back by that sentence, but thought that it's their own decision if they want to discourage contributions. Now it occurred to me to check a bunch of source files, and now I see why that part is needed. While it's unusual statement for an open source project, it goes together with another unusual property - they don't have copyright notice in the files, stating the license for each one. Usually projects rely on that any contribution is a change to a) a repository that has a certain license, and also b) to a source file that states the license that changes are made under.louis94 wrote:The "Pull Request" part is still as bad as before for the rights of potential contributors, but nothing prevents them from requiring whatever they want to include contributions.
If Lexxie wanted to make this crystal clear, she could just write a simple table of which folders are under which license and a simple sentence like "by proposing changes to FCW, you agree to release them under the license(s) for the corresponding folder(s)." This would probably be much easier to understand than the current CLA (and hence would stand more easily in court).