> What it doesn't allow is for my code to be re-licensed to AGPLv3 nor can they grant themselves a license to do whatever they want (their CLA). According to

> What it doesn't allow is for my code to be re-licensed to AGPLv3 nor can they grant themselves a license to do whatever they want (their CLA). According to https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-colla... it does both with minor caveats. For the "relicensing" it will have to preserves license information, e.g. > (C) new guy AGPL license text > Also incorporates work with the following license > (C) stgraber apache license text In practice that is the same as being AGPL licensed because doing otherwise would violate new guy's license. For the CLA nobody ever suggested they can do "whatever they want". What seems entirely possible however is for them to offer an entirely apache2 licensed version (the original version is apache2 and, only at their discretion, so are all future changes) as well as an AGPL licensed version.