> Companies get away with this because developers don't understand licensing in the first place. Pushing a false message that "once it's out, anything goes" is detrimental to that state of things.
So, for example, when a Router manufacturer consumes GPL code and doesn't contribute their changes back it's a failure of the developer who GPL'd the code they used? Why is the person sharing responsible for policing and enforcing? That burden encourages developers to either not share, or to share without restrictions.
> Of course it does, a license is a license, you cannot selectively apply only some of it.
Yes you can selectively enforce your own license. But enforcement isn't the point. Developers don't necessarily want the burden of enforcement that you're mandating they must do as part of sharing.
My point was that, if you can determine someone's code is derivative of GPL'd or MIT'd code but with a license stripped, you can still use it. If the person who stripped the license tries to come down on you, you're still protected by the original license that they stripped away.
> That's not a problem. Opensource doesn't run on generosity, but on publicity - a currency that can be converted into actual cash.
I would argue that your perspective is the problem. Open source is or isn't just about money. People who share aren't necessarily trying to do it for currency, social or monetary.
While I freely admit my contributions are limited, I have never sought any currency with them. My contributions fall into two categories, the first was to make a consistent problem I had with some code I consumed go away and the second was to share tools or utilities I made to solve my own problems because I thought someone else might like them.
Your opinion of open source puts unnecessary burdens on people who just want to share and results in much of the drama we see. Look no further than uBlock or WiringPi for examples of developers trying to move away from the burdens you're imposing.
Some people just want to share something they did without burden but you're basically saying "no, sharing comes with obligations like license enforcement, currency, or user support that you're required to invest in"
So, for example, when a Router manufacturer consumes GPL code and doesn't contribute their changes back it's a failure of the developer who GPL'd the code they used? Why is the person sharing responsible for policing and enforcing? That burden encourages developers to either not share, or to share without restrictions.
> Of course it does, a license is a license, you cannot selectively apply only some of it.
Yes you can selectively enforce your own license. But enforcement isn't the point. Developers don't necessarily want the burden of enforcement that you're mandating they must do as part of sharing.
My point was that, if you can determine someone's code is derivative of GPL'd or MIT'd code but with a license stripped, you can still use it. If the person who stripped the license tries to come down on you, you're still protected by the original license that they stripped away.
> That's not a problem. Opensource doesn't run on generosity, but on publicity - a currency that can be converted into actual cash.
I would argue that your perspective is the problem. Open source is or isn't just about money. People who share aren't necessarily trying to do it for currency, social or monetary.
While I freely admit my contributions are limited, I have never sought any currency with them. My contributions fall into two categories, the first was to make a consistent problem I had with some code I consumed go away and the second was to share tools or utilities I made to solve my own problems because I thought someone else might like them.
Your opinion of open source puts unnecessary burdens on people who just want to share and results in much of the drama we see. Look no further than uBlock or WiringPi for examples of developers trying to move away from the burdens you're imposing.
Some people just want to share something they did without burden but you're basically saying "no, sharing comes with obligations like license enforcement, currency, or user support that you're required to invest in"