[Tomte]

Why would they change an EULA clause for that?

[corty]

To signal potential open source contributors that there is no danger of being sued for their work. Too many vendors have used the fact or even just the accusation of reverse-engineering or other non-EULA-compliant behaviour to suppress OSS.

[Tomte]

That's a valid reason. But not what I asked.

I don't see a connection to "outsource tool development to some other company".

If I commission some work from another company, this company doesn't receive, modify or extend my software under the standard EULA. They do so under our contract.

[inamberclad]

The idea was that some outside company had a say in what went into the EULA.