Remove CLA

[comradekingu]

Weblate has text that links to a contributor agreement, that links to a CLA.
Not only are the contributions made already devoid of said CLA, but more alarmingly, it undermines the protections of the AGPL.

Copyright and licensing is already covered in https://hosted.weblate.org/legal/terms/

[r4rdsn]

@comradekingu Thank you, I've removed all non-compliant contributions from master for now. These were rebased before I was able to configure weblate to include a contributor agreement, sorry about that. You can reset your changes in the weblate's branch too. I'll leave the issue of CLA removal for other members of organization to discuss.

[Kwaskoff]

@comradekingu thank you, Allan for your contribution. We glad to know that you prefer our project. Sorry, we need to keep our repository in unified legal cleanliness and we are forced to reject your translations completely.
Fincubator team appreciates your contribution and wants to compensate it with our token.
Make an account on market.rudex.org and let us know by answering on this issue.

[comradekingu]

Not interested in money.
It isn't illegal to not have a CLA. You will find it isn't even legally enforceable when signed on Norwegian territory. Why don't you put in provisions in your CLA to protect the four freedoms of the license?
You will get a lot more contributions without that CLA.

[Kwaskoff]

We fixed our CLA, we need this agreement for more freedom for maintainer, every code published under AGPL license is open and free forever. And you should know and understand:
You retain ownership of the Copyright in Your Contribution and have the same rights to use or license the Contribution which You would have had without entering into the Agreement.

[comradekingu]

It is still there though, and you aren't even wrong. Why do you need that freedom, and why does it need to come from the rights of users granted by the AGPL? There is only one crucial change made by transferring said rights to the TellerBot. Instead of sharing rights as per the license, it becomes possible for TellerBot to waive all those rights for future publishing of the software.
I don't magically think of it as other software, and effectively it isn't AGPL for that reason. If the distinction isn't important to you, why do you "need" to remove that AGPL freedom from the user?

If it isn't developed without that clause, it never had the protection, and you removed contributions to get there.
Obviously your CLA is legally void based on the jurisdiction of the copyright holder. Especially since the only trade-off is contributing to software, in not being a contractor for commission. (Even then some jurisdictions take the side of the person doing the work).

A CLA on AGPLv3 is not "unified legal cleanliness", and I can't think of anyone that does it. None of the projects you use have a CLA. Telegram is also shady though.
The only semi-justifiable reason would be to have a CLA that specifies that the copyleft parts are to be respected when changing license.

[comradekingu]

@Kwaskoff The forever part depends on whether you use the power to close any further versions off. This protection exists in AGPL like you describe, but with the CLA you are using it means there is no protection.
Keep all the powers you feel you need, but remove the option to make it worse.

An option (for the maintainer) to pick any strong full copyleft license that doesn't reduce the freedom for the user I would sign. The sooner you do this, the sooner you get contributions.