It's spelled out very clearly in the Desura blog that they indeed changed the ToS in SL in order to make your content available in other games through Desura. Amazingly they try to make it sound so positive, while at the same time saying "We're currently undermining people with changes of terms of service in order to profit off of their content. Heck, they even pay US to upload it."
From the Desura Blog posted by Oz Linden............
Read Full Blog Here
We are excited about improving and expanding Desura. Retaining open source for the client is important to us because we believe that will keep it focused on the needs of both game developers and end users. A primary emphasis of Desura’s vision has been to provide game developers with ways to integrate capabilities and services provided by the platform into games - providing community features through the platform within and between games while allowing game developers to focus on game development. We believe that keeping the client open is the best way to support such integration, and some of our plans for how to proceed are specifically motivated by our desire to make that simpler.
We are still in the early stages of prioritizing the many things we would like to do with Desura as a whole, but we are already working on some requests from the community, including a Mac port and replacing the use of MFC. We are also constructing a continuous build and test infrastructure to support the project.
We would like to make the open source project licensing easier than it currently is for game developers, including non-open-source games. Specifically, we would like to change the open source license that the project uses to the one that we have been using for the Second Life Viewer for several years now: LGPL version 2.1. We believe that will help to clarify that game developers can incorporate Desura client technology in their products however those products are licensed, and remove the need to drive software design in order to insulate non-open source games from the viral aspects of the GPL.
We would also like to use a Contribution Agreement substantially similar to the Contribution Agreement that we use for the Second Life Viewer; it has worked well in that capacity. Essentially, contributors assign a copyright to the company while retaining their own copyright (bits have the nice property that we can each have rights to use them without interfering with the other party’s rights). Having a single entity holding a copyright to all of the code makes future modifications to the project licensing much simpler; for example, there is no way to know how future changes to the legal environment may necessitate changes. There is also some language in the agreement designed to ensure that patents do not become problematic for the project or its derivative works.
As has been pointed out in your discussions, any change that we make to the license used by the project in the future should not affect the existing license to the code - contributions from both Desura and others remain under the GPLv3 as documented now in the source files, and could be used by anyone under those terms. We would rather do new work under the new license because we think it best meets the needs of our customers and collaborators.
Changing the license will require that we initiate discussions with past contributors. If some contributors are uncomfortable with this new structure, we may need to evaluate the impact that could have and whether we may need to make any adjustments. Contributors should each expect to hear from us soon.
The very sad thing is, SL continues to suffer because LL is spending time on expanding other projects, making changes slow coming, and all in the name of profit. The very LEAST they could do is make uploads to SL free and invite SL content creators with an option to submit content to Desura games with a profit sharing agreement (They already profit everytime you content sells on SL through the SL MarketPlace) But no, it's the new way in America with this new communist corporate mindset..."All for me, none for you."