CLA is contradictory/ambiguous #193
Description
The CLA requires contributors agree to two things:
Copyright License: You grant the Project maintainers and recipients a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, modify, publicly display, sublicense, and distribute your Contributions under any license terms.
and
You grant the Project maintainers the right to relicense your Contributions under any OSI-approved open-source license to ensure the Project can adapt its licensing while maintaining its open-source nature.
This doesn't make sense. The first is a grant to sublicense under any license terms. The second is a grant to relicense under any open-source license. Why mention open source licenses in the second part if the grant of ability to sublicense under any license is required?
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this CLA allows the maintainers to sublicense the entire project under proprietary terms. The ability to relicense under open source licenses doesn't seem to matter at that point.
Why should contributors sign over a copyright grant that allows their donations of free software to be repurposed for proprietary software offerings? That's not how free software works.