Unless you have copyright on all the code, you're a licensee on at least parts of the code.
So while you're indeed the licensor of your enhancements, at the same time you're a licensee of the original code.
So while you're indeed the licensor of your enhancements, at the same time you're a licensee of the original code.
- I become a licensee of code under AGPL if I bring in AGPL code from an external project. Downstream can remove my clause.
- I don't become a licensee if I have an adequately strong CLA in place, and only accept contributions under the CLA.
- I become a licensee of the code if you make a PR to my project without a CLA. However, you're contributing code under AGPL+CC. Downstream cannot remove my clause.
That's my read on both the court ruling and the intent of the AGPL.
It'd be crazy for a court to rule that you can't modify a license. Once you have AGPL+CC, that's a new license (and it's not open source or compatible with most other sharealike licenses).