Quote Originally Posted by chenxiaolong View Post
I'm just going to hijack your conversation here

Section 2.3 of Canonical's agreement says this:

Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
licenses which We are using for the Material on the
Submission Date.

They have the right to make the software proprietary, but it must be in addition the license of the software when the contribution was accepted. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, since Mir is licensed under the LGPL and GPL, they could never dual license it with a proprietary license.

If what I said is true, I'm not worried about the CLA.
You should still be worried its just saying that YOUR contribution will always be licenced under the curect licence. i.e they just have to release the source for the version your code was included in, which everyone would have access to anyway. BUT they dont need to provide the source code for the newer relicenced code. i.e You might contribute to version 1 then they release version 2 which is now closed source your change is still provided as source in version 1 so no need to release it for version 2. This is how I read it anyway.

They real issue here and something I haven't seen anyone bring up yet is:

Whats worse for software Freedom GPL software with the CLA or code licenced under MIT. My understanding is either of them can become proprietary.