[cyphar]

No, because they signed CLAs. And this is yet another reason to not ever sign a CLA for a free software project. You never know if your code will become proprietary (especially if it is a copyleft license). Sadly, this is also why I'll never contribute to GNU projects.

[Spivak]

You're worried that a GNU project will relicense code in a way that allows proprietary software? I mean you're not wrong -- they technically could do that but you honestly expect them to?

[15155]

I will shit a brick if RMS ever betrays his ideals. It's almost unthinkable.

[cyphar]

Well, it's more about what happens if something bad happens to the FSF? What if they get acquired and then $BigCo gets all of the copyright assignments. I don't believe that the FSF would betray people like that, but there may be situations where they don't have a choice.

[the_why_of_y]

This is an unlikely scenario. The FSF is a 501(c)(3) charity, which means they have to work for the benefit of the general public and not to give an advantage to any particular person or for-profit company. If they would ever do the latter, the following IRS audit would not be fun.

https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organ...

Many proponents of copyright assignment to for-profit corporations have argued that "it's just the same thing as what the FSF does, so it's fine", but their legal nonprofit status makes it a substantial difference.

A better argument against the FSF's copyright assignment practice is that it is bureaucratic overhead for somewhat questionable benefit.

[cyphar]

I've actually discovered since that the FSF's CLA actually explicitly states that you give them your copyright under the condition that they always provide it under a copyleft license. So it looks like I was wrong about that and might even start contributing to GNU projects.