This just seems overly broad for your purposes. Plus you reserve the right to update the terms, yet you have an irrevocable license to your users' software. I

This just seems overly broad for your purposes. Plus you reserve the right to update the terms, yet you have an irrevocable license to your users' software. I just don't see this being realistic for anything except thin wrappers around FOSS projects. That's great in itself, but I'm not sure why you offer the "closed source" option for projects. Based on your terms, you could turn around and open source all those since users have given you power to sub-license. Granted, I doubt you'd do that but it demonstrates how needlessly broad your terms are. (I'm not a lawyer; this is just my speculation and not advice)