Jujutsu: a new, Git-compatible version control system

> Let me repeat, it is bad for society if companies are allowed to give stuff away for free, because this creates a situation where people easily get dependent on the free stuff. At some point it is (wonders of the capitalism) not free anymore, but people still depend on it.

I don't think that argument works here. Google is not delivering a product, they're delivering source under an open-source license. Publishing it doesn't make people dependant and if Google goes away you still have everything had before, so there's no downside. You can do anything with this source that you like, including selling it. If Google decided to start charging, you could just fork it and start a competing community without any loss of functionality.

The CLA isn't giving Google any special powers, since anything you grant to Google is also granted to everyone they distribute the source to which is basically everyone. It's mostly just making explicit which would otherwise be implied (ie. if you make a contribution, then Google may presume you have the rights to do so. In the normal course of business this is the default position, but having it spelt out explicitly is not a bad thing when dealing with international contributors.)