[KPGv2]

> This was a surprise to me but it explained why some OSS projects, like ones by Adobe, require a CLA: many people use their libraries at work, and if someone like that contributes a fix Adobe’s lawyers justifiedly would not want part of their code to be owned by another company.

A CLA does not affect who owns the code. It only grants the OSS project the right to use the code.

Generally speaking, a CLA will be a non-exclusive license, meaning you can give the OSS project the right to use your code while you also retain the ability to license that code to others as well (as well as continue to use it in your own projects)

[strogonoff]

CLA is about licensing, CTA is about copyright, but legally licensing seems enough to avoid a dispute.

> while you also retain the ability to license that code to others as well

Depends on the license! Always read what you sign. Get a lawyer to read it.