> while being fully GPL'ed Free Software

I wouldn't sing them praises for being FOSS. All contributions are signed away under their CLA which will allow them to pull the plug when their VCs come knocking and the FOSS angle is no longer convenient.

How is this true if it’s actually GPL as gp claimed?

The CLA assigns ownership of your contributions to the Zed team[^0]. When you own software, you can release it under whatever license you want. If I hold a GPL license to a copy, I have that license to that copy forever, and it permits me to do all the GPL things with it, but new copies and new versions you distribute are whatever you want them to be. For example Redis relicensed, prompting the community to fork the last open-source version as Valkey.

The way it otherwise works without a CLA is that you own the code you contributed to your repo, and I own the code I contributed to your repo, and since your code is open-source licensed to me, that gives me the ability to modify it and send you my changes, and since my code is open-source licensed to you, that gives you the ability to incorporate it into your repo. The list of copyright owners of an open source repo without a CLA is the list of committers. You couldn't relicense that because it includes my code and I didn't give you permission to. But a CLA makes my contribution your code, not my code.

[^0]: In this case, not literally. You instead grant them a proprietary free license, satisfying the 'because I didn't give you permission' part more directly.

Because when you sign away copyright, the software can be relicensed and taken closed source for all future improvements. Sure, people can still use the last open version, maybe fork it to try to keep going, but that simply doesn’t work out most times. I refuse to contribute to any project that requires me to give them copyright instead of contributing under copyleft; it’s just free contractors until the VCs come along and want to get their returns.

> I refuse to contribute to any project that requires me to give them copyright instead of contributing under copyleft

Please note that even GNU themselves require you to do this, see e.g. GNU Emacs which requires copyright assignment to the FSF when you submit patches. So there are legitimate reasons to do this other than being able to close the source later.

I will start being worried about GNU approach the day they accept VC money.

> even GNU themselves require you to do this

Some GNU projects require this; it’s up to the individual maintainers of each specific GNU project whether to require this or not. Many don’t.

FSF and GNU are stewards of copyleft, and FSF is structured under 501(c)(3). Assigning copyright to FSF whose significant purpose is to defend and encourage copyleft…is contributing under copyleft in my mind. They would face massive backlash (and GNU would likely face lawsuits from FSF) were they to attempt such a thing. Could they? Possibly. Would they? Exceptionally unlikely.

So yes, I trust a non-profit, and a collective with nearly 50 years of history supporting copyleft, implicitly more than I will ever trust a company or project offering a software while requiring THEY be assigned the copyright rather than a license. Even your statement holds a difference; they require assignment to FSF, not the project or its maintainers.

That’s just listening to history, not really a gotcha to me.

The FSF also typically requires a copyright assignment for their GPL code. Nobody thinks that they’ll ever relicense Emacs, though.

They’re also not exactly a VC-backed startup.

yeah I don't mind signing a CLA for copyleft software to a non-profit org, but i do with a for-profit one.

It has been decades since I've seen an FSF CLA packet, but if I recall correctly, the FSF also made legally-binding promises back to the original copyright holder, promising to distribute the code under some kind of "free" (libre, not gratuit) license in the future. This would have allowed them to switch from GPL 2 to GPL 3, or even to an MIT license. But it wouldn't have allowed them to make the software proprietary.

But like I said, it has been decades since I've seen any of their paperwork, and memory is fallible.

In my opinion, it's not. They could start licensing all new code under a non-FOSS license tomorrow and we'd still have the GPL'ed Zed as it is today. The same is true for any project, CLA or not.

why not just use sublime text?

That GPL/Free Software part is a pretty huge part of the reason.

until the inevitable VC rug pull…

It’ll still be GPL.