[dindresto]

I think the point BartjeD wants to make is that due to the nature of MIT licensing, they could run away with your contributions anyway, even without a CLA. Furthermore, Redis didn't have a CLA if I remember correctly and the relicensing is solely based on the what the previously used BSD license allows.

[mort96]

Is that true? If I contribute to a MIT-licensed project without a CLA, my contributions can't just be re-licensed to some proprietary license, can it? Wouldn't my contributions remain MIT, even if they re-license all other parts of the project to some proprietary license?

Isn't the point of CLAs that you can re-license contributors' contributions?

[paulryanrogers]

MIT and BSD are so liberal that anyone can commercialize the work. All they have to do is attribute your parts to you, and not demand a warranty of you.

[mort96]

Why do corporate MIT-licensed projects have CLAs then?

(That's not meant a gotcha, I just don't really know how this stuff works)

[paulryanrogers]

CLAs in those cases may be more to cover their ass in case of disputes about authorship, the future of the project, or in case they forget attribution.

[bcye]

Interesting, I thought the point of not wanting CLAs was not giving them the ability to relicense your code under a more restrictive license (i.e. SSPL), not to keep them from running away with it.