That's sort of fine. As a personal user, someone could fork and maintain redis in that case, which wasn't true in the SSPL era.
Now AGPL+CLA is not a license I'd contribute under, but also Redis is so far down my priorities that it wasn't a project I was going to be issuing PRs for anyway.
> Would you rather contribute to MIT software where everyone can make proprietary fork?
In my case that is it.
I'm totally fine with people taking my MIT licensed code in a MIT licensed project and running with it.
However, working for free on someone elses code base knowing that they can always go commercial with it or do whatever they want while I and the rest of the community is stuck with AGPL, that is something I'd rather avoid, if possible.
Yes, the asymmetry is a problem. If the terms the company has to use my contributions is more favorable to them than the terms under which I can use their contributions, then I'm not into playing that game.
There is an asymetry anyway as the company is probably contributing more than 90% of the code, maintain the infrastructure for the CI and website, do the promotion of the software, and more.
Depending of the motivation for your contribution, you get what you want, eg, the feeling of contributing to an open source project presumably used by many people, or having that entity to maintain your patch "for free".
You can keep your change in a fork if you like, but the likelihood that your fork is getting used is not that big, and mean more work from your side to rebase the change.
Now AGPL+CLA is not a license I'd contribute under, but also Redis is so far down my priorities that it wasn't a project I was going to be issuing PRs for anyway.