How can you compare the FLA with Oracle's CLA??? From the FSFA:
> An FLA offers a special clause against this kind of situation, in order to protect the Free Software project against potentially malicious intentions of the Trustee. According to this provision, if the Trustee acts against the principles of Free Software, all granted rights and licences return to their original owners. That means that the Trustee will be effectively prevented from continuing any activity which is contrary to the principles of Free Software.
You can name a few more rugpulls made possible by contributor agreements that permitted blatant abuse of power, and Oracle is also not innocent in this. Off the top of my head I remember the VirtualBox extensions fiasco. Oracle changed the license then started sending bills to companies.
I don't know what the "FLA" or "FSFA" is (are they real things or is this an AI-generated comment?), but the FSF traditionally required copyright assignment, which gave them all the rights in Oracle's CLA and more.
A programme that seemingly only existed for one significant project, and is not open to new projects. Interesting, but hardly representative of the free software movement in general.
> An FLA offers a special clause against this kind of situation, in order to protect the Free Software project against potentially malicious intentions of the Trustee. According to this provision, if the Trustee acts against the principles of Free Software, all granted rights and licences return to their original owners. That means that the Trustee will be effectively prevented from continuing any activity which is contrary to the principles of Free Software.
You can name a few more rugpulls made possible by contributor agreements that permitted blatant abuse of power, and Oracle is also not innocent in this. Off the top of my head I remember the VirtualBox extensions fiasco. Oracle changed the license then started sending bills to companies.