Now back to business; You say you tend to agree about the license(not copyight) transfer. Well here is news for you; KDAB is fucking KDE. By the "great works on framework5" they are transfering former KDE-lib stuff into Qt. And you know what a that means. Going into Qt is saying byebye to copyleft because of the Qt contributor license. So right now everybody in KDE is cheering for frameworks5 which really are just shady skunkworks5 to decopyleftize(nice word, cant be googled) KDE. Digia likes this and KDAB likes this. Yuck!
I backup everything that FunkSTAR says and he is not trolling. Only copyright owner can assign a license and copyright transfer agreement, in any form, allow to control the entire contributed block of code and assign any license.
While this is not problematic for Qt as a library (libraries should ideally dynlink to anything) to be in essence *BSD licensed, it is highly problematic for anything non-library and in fact, results in ability to exploit GPL completely removing it.
The only positive thing, is that Dignia either ensures that the code is LGPLed, or it gets payed for allowing closed source license. Both ways exclude a possibility of zerocost closed down project fork without paying Dignia for that. That is not possible with *BSD license.
That, of course, goes in contrast with original motivation behind GPL - to be able to always prove and improve the source code one is running, no matter what financial model is used to create the code.
So, basically what you want to do, if you support freedom software rather than opencore/shareware, is to publish your contribution under "Latest available GPL license" and never sign any copyright transfer agreements.
Of course he's trolling.
He's using tons of BSD-licensed software on his computer: OpenSSH, X.org, the whole graphics stack, etc., which is even worse for copyleft than Qt's situation, yet he doesn't bla bla bla bla bla about that all the time, 100% of the time.
He's just getting people riled up with outrageous half-truths, a classic troll.