That's BS. First of all, companies have closed down GPL projects, because founding companies require copyright assignments on contributions.
Even the FSF does it, with the purpose of being able to change software to newer versions of the GPL, or to be able to sue for copyright infringement. And in the US at least, it's better if one entity is the copyright owner. But the issue remains thay the FSF could turn most of its GNU software proprietary.
The other reason for why it's BS is that it doesn't actually match reality. See LLVM vs GCC.
The biggest danger is companies releasing software with source-available, under proprietary licenses, using the Free Software / Open Source label for marketing purposes, diluting the meaning, which is otherwise well defined.
Like for example MongoDB and Elasticsearch, which grew due to being FOSS, then switched. And the license doesn't matter if the company has the right to switch, given they own the copyright.
I also predict this message will get "But Amazon" replies. Well, that's what FOSS is. Yes, it does grant Amazon the right to make money off your work. If you don't like it, then don't build FOSS, only to pull a bait and switch. FOSS is a terrible business model, because once a project is FOSS, it becomes part of the commons, and that's by design.
This is a good point. CLAs are bad because they are designed to allow a license change. The only organisation I would be likely to contribute under a CLA is the FSF, but that's mainly because RMS is still there and I know he won't pull the rug.
I'm sure you know this, but to be clear for readers: almost all free software licenses are also open source licenses and vice versa.
The canonical examples are things like the BSD licenses.
See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatible...
> This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
I think it would be clearer to say that the greatest threat to free software is the proliferation of non-copyleft free software which can be closed down if a company so wishes.