[workedintheory]

Audacity was, is, and will always be GPL. The CLA does not change this. The CLA simply provides a dual license option for distribution through channels that may not be GPL friendly (ex: app stores).

Look at the VLC/Apple issue. This is an insurance policy against something similar in future.

CLA is not to be able to create a paid version of Audacity, that is fundamentally against our core beliefs. Creators should have free access to software; the money is in content.

In addition, the CLA allows for the ability to share code between the MuseScore and Audacity projects, greatly accelerating development. MuseScore has had a CLA in place from the beginning so it is only possible to share code between projects if similar CLA is in place.

The next version of MuseScore will introduce a completely redesigned/rebuilt UX, VST3 support, realtime effects, a redesigned mixer, expanded MIDI support, and a proper sequencer is soon to follow.

All of these features have been popular requests of Audacity users and will greatly (and quickly) extend the capabilities of Audacity.

Not applying a CLA actually limits the potential of the project (availability on popular devices and using code from MuseScore) more than applying the CLA.

[EvanAnderson]

That all sounds great. The CLA says:

You hereby grant to Company , a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative works.

Someday "MUSECY SM LTD, an affiliate of MuseScore and Ultimate Guitar" could be acquired or come under the control of an entity that does not share the "core beliefs" the CLA was drafted under. I wouldn't be comfortable relying on beliefs in lieu of a legal document spelling out exactly what contributed can be used for. The language in the CLA is what matters, not beliefs.

I haven't contributed to Audacity so it's not a practical matter for me. I wouldn't contribute to a project with a CLA that grants such a broad license. I'm a minority, to be sure, but there are probably others who feel the same way.

I've been burned, in business relationships, by verbally-articulated intentions that weren't codified in contracts and weren't honored. The whole "I thought you said..." and "I meant..." game has made me very wary of accepting terms that aren't articulated as part of a legal agreement. If something is important enough to agree upon it's important enough to put in writing.

[workedintheory]

We do understand that the CLA will discourage some from contributing.

Audacity is transitioning from an entirely voluntary development team to a team of many engineers, designers, testers, project managers, and a product manager all working full-time on the project.

While we welcome and encourage community contributors to the project we anticipate that most of the contributions will be from the dedicated team.

MuseScore underwent a similar transition to where more than 85% of commits are now from the dedicated team, while the number and frequency of commits has also significantly increased.

We expect Audacity to be similar.