[bennyhill]

That's not a very charitable take for a message on a short form platform. A company like Terraform may have had to make harder decisions or never be able to do a rug pull if more of the community refused to submit code under CLA or non-GPL style licenses.

[kopecs]

It seems like a fair take to me. Certainly plenty of companies, HashiCorp included, would have fewer choices about how to license future code if they made different decisions regarding contributions. But something like:

> I wonder if the community has grounds to sue any of these companies who are ditching the AGPL in favor of proprietary, source-available licenses, especially under “third-party beneficiary contract” legal theories, like @conservancy did in their suit against Vizio.

> If the source code originally used AGPL, isn’t it still contractually obligated to ensure those rights to its users, including any new source code added to it?

seems to indicate rather strongly that the original poster doesn't understand the AGPL terms, CLAs, or the nuances of contract litigation. At least OP recognises that at least enough to ask a question about it, but I don't think "random questions I thought up about reasonably well-settled law in Twitter thread form" makes a good post.

[bennyhill]

It seems like a perfectly good topic to me (and I'm not sure why we would expect more in an OP than in a ask HN topic).

The OP may not understand why but it is very common to have gaps when relicensing because collecting CLAs, etc, is often allowed to slip to the minimum for the current license terms.