So, that's a reason that might wish to release a non-open-source model with this particular license, and one that provides an alternative to the “Meta is doing this because they stand to benefit from open source models taking off”, specifically, “Meta is doing this because it stands to benefit from drawing energy away from open source models into ones that cannot legally be used to commercially compete”.
> Does it make these startups vulnerable, to long term future legal action? Sure, but nobody is thinking that far ahead.
Well, the startups may not be, but Meta maybe is, and its acquiring a zero-cost, upside-only investment in every startup doing that. “Unjust enrichment”.
Crying about it doesn't change it's effectiveness.
And really, I don't think meta cares either.
They likely are releasing this stuff, with a strict license, just so they don't have any liability, or bad publicity.
But, they likely are happy that everyone is using their stuff.
A better example would be Uber, though, a company which is now massively success despite early legal problems
Also, once again, Facebook likely wants everyone to be using their product and is unlikely to go after people.
So what?
Sure, maybe the Googles of the world aren't building on top of meta's products, but I can tell you that a lot of startups are.
Does it make these startups vulnerable, to long term future legal action? Sure, but nobody is thinking that far ahead. What people are thinking about is how to get users and show off flashy demos to investors.
Instead, people are just pushing out products, breaking meta's licenses, and not telling people about it, while they attempt to get traction.
Strict licensing, without enforcement, is not worth the paper that the contract is written on.