[growse]

The duplicitous language is a bit slimy here.

"In order for us, Retake, Inc. (dba ParadeDB) to accept patches and other contributions from you, you need..." makes it sound like their hands are tied, you must assign copyright, there's no other option.

In reality, this is a (contributor-hostile) choice they made. They could have made different ones.

[gumby]

But you aren’t assigning copyright, you’re getting a license to bundle the contribution with the rest of the package.

And they don’t feel safe including a patch without a license to use it. Not an unreasonable position to take.

The wording is explicit (italics mine):

> You hereby grant to the Company and to recipients of software distributed by the Company a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to…

[pxc]

When you contribute code to an AGPLv3 project without a CLA, you are also giving them a license to use your code. The name of that very license is... 'APGLv3'!

The CLA means you're giving them an additional license: one that lets them do things that the AGPLv3 wouldn't, like use your code in proprietary software.

This is common for FOSS-maintaining organizations that want to use dual-licensing as part of their revenue strategy. Users (including organizationswho are comfortable publishing any downstream changes they might make under the terms of the copyleft license use the free version. Users who are not can instead choose to purchase a proprietary license, like they would with closed-source software.

Often there's some hope that as users of F/OSS, the developers and users are overlapping groups, and there's enough alignment of interests there to provide some level of assurance that the developers (or publisher, in the case of a corporation or collective entity) won't suddenly make drastic changes without user input. (Often, too, that isn't actually the case.) A CLA can give the developer the ability to make such drastic changes as taking a copyleft project and creating a closed-source fork. In cases where the development work is supplied predominantly by a single commercial entity, that means that they can essentially orphan the project out from under you, leaving the open-source version of their software an unmaintained vestige of a proprietary commercial offering, at any time.

So CLAs involve a lot of trust or a lot of risk. Some companies have set up non-profit foundations to be the official stewards of their dually-licensed software so that the chief/commercial maintainers of the software can leverage the dual-licensing revenue strategy while fostering strong community trust. See, for example, the Free Qt Foundation. When Google wanted a CLA as insurance against patent litigation for Kubernetes, they did a similar thing and set up the Cloud-Native Compute Foundation so that Kubernetes could have a 'trustworthy CLA', so-to-speak.

I hope that clears up both why upstream developers might sometimes want a CLA of this kind and why downstream developers can sometimes be leery of them.

[warkdarrior]

Yes, the CLA says that you give them a license for them to in turn sublicense your code to others in any way they want.