Should we adopt a CLA over DCO for clearer copyright ownership?

[Aria.D]

I’ve been trying to get our project to adopt a proper CLA for contributor licensing, but some core maintainers are pushing back hard. They argue it adds friction and that the existing DCO is enough to protect us. I’m worried about downstream corporate contributions without the clearer copyright assignment it provides.

[Anthony_G]

We tried a CLA pilot, and the friction was real. Maintainers complained about extra forms and signatures, and PR times stretched by a day or two. We didn’t get enough signups from big contributors, so we rolled back and stuck with the DCO and a lot more handholding on license notes. Still, downstream corporate contributions worry me since ownership isn’t crystal clear.

[BrianS]

From my experience, the DCO covers who authored the code but not who owns the copyright. Downstream companies sometimes push back when they realize the project could be relicensed. A lighter policy that asks for some assignment on first contribution might help, but it’s a gamble and it adds its own friction.

[MilaJ]

I started by updating the contributing guidelines and leaving most of the policy decisions to the maintainers. We saw traffic dip for external PRs for a couple of weeks, then it picked back up. Sometimes I wonder if the real issue is review velocity and governance, not the paperwork.

[NicholasG]

One thought: if you ran a short pilot, did you measure PR velocity before vs after? Not sure the numbers tell the whole story, but maybe they reveal whether friction actually matters.