Of course either way they are a business and will be careful. Their core business will not be contributed.
Perhaps a variant of CC-BY NC would be better, but it is not tailored to code.
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/CopyFair_License
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft
https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/copyfarleft-and-...
I like how this general direction is discussed a lot in France, and sad about learning a language taking so much effort.
AGPL addresses that by putting code distributed as a web application in the same category as compiled code.
GCC is written specifically to prevent this sort of firewalling of the compiler to prevent it from being plugged into another piece of software and avoid GPL requirements.
Even then there's always the analogue/human loophole I suppose, similar to captcha mechanical turks.
It seems toothless to me. A relic from a byegone era when companies cared about ethical behavior.
I don’t understand this idea that a license that the author willingly released his code under is unenforceable, but EULAs are?
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20141007073104/http://gpl-violat...
I wish they'd just create something closer to tomato than the flashy, less useful interfaces.
oh i didnt know he was adamant against the clause - i thought that he didn't want to force it upon the many existing users of linux.
He also has refused to release any of his projects under GPLv3 (or even “v2 or later”).
>Meanwhile, much murmuring has been going on in recent months to the supposed effect that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court.
(implying it has never been tested in any court)
>We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there.
(Explicitly stating it has never been tested in court)
>I have assisted free software developers other than the FSF to deal with such problems, which we have resolved—since the criminal infringer would not voluntarily desist and, in the cases I have in mind, legal technicalities prevented actual criminal prosecution of the violators—by talking to redistributors and potential customers.
And lastly, the money quote. In the cases of criminal, malicious infringement, they were not able to prosecute.
And what do you think "not able to prosecute" means? District attorneys (or non-USA equivalents) decide when to prosecute crimes, not private copyright owners. It's very rare for the criminal justice system to intervene in complicated white-collar stuff, especially when a straightforward civil remedy is available. A legal realist might say that means the GPL--and indeed most copyrights beyond those infringed by warez/torrentz sites--is effectively unenforceable criminally, and would in a useful sense be right; but it's enforceable civilly, so no one cares much.
I feels as though the world has soured on the GPL in recent years, but whenever I see this type of sentiment—that open sourcing work is just a gift from small developers to big tech companies, or something thereabouts—I think, wouldn't the GPL solve that problem?
Sure, big companies can still use GPL'd code, but they're forced to give back as much as they take, which is exactly the outcome you want.
(This doesn't necessarily apply to the situation with AppGet, however.)