[Omni Q&A] Entropy512:
Yeah.

To be absolutely, 100% clear - They attempted to represent the CLA as something that would give them the ability to relicense a GPL contribution if the contributor was the original copyright holder of said contribution. (In the event where the contributor is not original copyright holder, no CLA in existence would allow relicensing because the contributor didn't have the rights to relicense the code.)

THIS IS NOT THE CASE. YOU CAN'T USE THE CLA THAT WAY. But they attempted to do so anyway - not only was it just wrong to treat a contributor like that, they misrepresented the document as giving legal powers it didn't actually give them.

The CLA is there as a "cover your ass" legal document in the case of a nasty legal dispute. I hope to hell we never have a need to use it. (In fact, in my opinion, the CLA is redundant and unnecessary for Apache and GPL licensed contributions, as the Apache and GPL licenses explicitly grant compatible redistribution/usage rights. Some other contributions are not as clear in terms of licensing, for example, media assets.) Another place it might come into play is if someone submits something with a license like that found in this file:

https://github.com/oppo-source/R819...89/kernel/drivers/dum-char/partition_define.c

In theory, if someone who was in the category of MTK or a licensor contributed such an item to our Gerrit, that contribution in combination with the CLA would be written permission to reproduce/modify/disclose the file. Note that not just anyone can submit something like that - there are other clauses to handle that (clause 7 I think???) - effectively saying that you yourself have the legal rights to contribute whatever you're contributing.

Oh, FYI, that file and files with similar licensing are one of the things holding back support of MTK devices.

One thing to note: CLAs DO exist that do give the kinds of power that Cyanogen, Inc. wanted to wield. An example is Canonical's Harmony CLA:

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/4553.html - He links to the Harmony CLA there (direct link - http://www.canonical.com/sites/default/files/active/images/Canonical-HA-CLA-ANY-I.pdf ), take a look at clause 2.3 - it's nasty:

2.3 Outbound License
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.

This is VERY different from the "sublicense" language in the AOSP CLA. For a bit on sublicensing:

(crap, can't find one of the better links I used to have...)

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/189633/what-sublicense-actually-means has some info

http://www.contractstandards.com/document-checklists/technology-license-agreement/sublicenses - Note "Additionally the scope of rights that the Licensee can sublicense is often narrower than the scope of the original license (e.g. the purpose or end-product is limited to those specifically enumerated)." - Commercial dual-licensing of a GPL contribution is prett unambiguously expanding the scope of the original license and NOT something that a CLA which only grants you sublicensing rights allows.