I too find the CLA decision a bit strange, though I have no issue with their dual to single license transition. Dual-licensing under MIT and GPL is effectively

I too find the CLA decision a bit strange, though I have no issue with their dual to single license transition. Dual-licensing under MIT and GPL is effectively like licensing under MIT; if someone wants to write a proprietary fork, or a GPL extension, they already could and still can. What I find strange about the CLA is that I don't understand the reason behind it. With a solely-GPL project, I could understand an agreement like the FSF's, which has practical advantages such as a single party asserting the license terms if a third party breaks them, while promising the code will not be used in proprietary software against the author's wishes. But in this case, if the code is under the MIT license, third parties can already use the code in their proprietary code, so the agreement doesn't gain anything. So, what's the point?