> Centralizing copyright ownership in a single entity grants that entity the ability to lock down the project at any time and defeat the copyleft It also grant

> Centralizing copyright ownership in a single entity grants that entity the ability to lock down the project at any time and defeat the copyleft It also grants the ability to make the project more open. I once wanted to change a project I was part of to a more permissive public domain license. Leadership was in favour but ultimately rejected it due the impracticality of dealing with getting agreement from everyone who had ever contributed (there were no CLAs). So it remained with the old license. If an entity unilaterally changes the license, you can still fork it at the time the change was made and continue from there. Now, I’m not defending Contributor License Agreements. I also dislike them and the hurdles they cause to contribution. Plus, the situation you described of the project becoming more locked down instead of less is likely more common, and forks can be a pain for everyone. Still, wanted to share the other side.