>If I contribute to an AGPL project and sign a CLA that assigns copyright to you, you might announce tomorrow that you are going to run off with my contribution

>If I contribute to an AGPL project and sign a CLA that assigns copyright to you, you might announce tomorrow that you are going to run off with my contribution and start only releasing new versions under a non-FOSS licence. That is generally the point of a CLA. If that bothers you you're supposed to not contribute and not sign. The up side is that that revenue model might mean that they can pay people to do that work instead of relying upon drive by pull requests and maintainers dedicating their time for free. Back in the early days of open source I saw a lot of people get mad at viral licensing because it did exactly what it was supposed to. There was some weird sort of entitlement complex going on where people felt entitled not only to use open source but that it was somehow unfair that they couldn't also violate the terms and conditions of using it. I was similarly perplexed by the reaction back then too.