Richard Fontana

If this is the Plone contributor agreement of which you speak http://plone.org/foundation/contributors-agreement/agreement.pdf (pdf) - I see it is based to some degree on the FSF copyright assignment. The Plone Foundation explicitly retains the right to license outbound under non-FLOSS licenses but does commit also to outbound FLOSS licensing (but not just GPL). One possibly significant difference from Harmony is that the FLOSS outbound license commitment seems potentially to apply to all of Plone and not just artificially to the contribution in isolation.

Overall, I'd conclude the Plone agreement is about as bad as Harmony, but probably no worse.

I'm focusing on Harmony in this article. I note in this Part 1 that there are what I call "minimalist" contributor agreements. These do not raise the problems that maximalist varieties (like Harmony) do.

I confess I'm not familiar with Plone's approach but I'll look into it. I think Apache is a unique case. Its CLA is formally maximalist, but as used by the ASF it is effectively harmless since it is essentially duplicative of the outbound license used by ASF projects. See my article on the new Fedora contributor agreement which I wrote last year: https://opensource.com/law/10/6/new-contributor-agreement-fedora (Fedora's old CLA was based on the Apache CLA).