What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allows that.
But with a CLA, it becomes much easier for their code to move towards source-available.
The thing is, a GPL or AGPL license without a CLA would actually be a reasonable defense against closing down the software in the future, since it would block Element from being relicensed to something more restrictive without the permission of the copyright holders. Even if there is a legitimate need to sell exceptions, a CLA that gave the company a limited right to sell specific exceptions would be better than full copyright assignment and would actually increase my trust in the project rather than worrying me.
But with a CLA, it becomes much easier for their code to move towards source-available.
The thing is, a GPL or AGPL license without a CLA would actually be a reasonable defense against closing down the software in the future, since it would block Element from being relicensed to something more restrictive without the permission of the copyright holders. Even if there is a legitimate need to sell exceptions, a CLA that gave the company a limited right to sell specific exceptions would be better than full copyright assignment and would actually increase my trust in the project rather than worrying me.