Very little, indeed. However, just a blob of source without any updates or progress isn't very useful. I doubt many companies will buy software and take it upon themselves to maintain a public repository of someone else's source code. There's no profit to be made in that.
The copyright itself couldn't be used to take the code down, because the open license allows the customer to do exactly that.
Theoretically, a customer can buy the software, fork it, and turn it into an open source fork. Without the support contract to receive updates, though, I doubt that'll be very useful in the end.
At worst, a competitor buys your software and uses your own software against you by analysing, publishing and extending it, and selling support contracts in your market. However, I strongly doubt there's much money to be made that way.
I'm no businessman either so I wouldn't know what brings companies to make software like that. I think these licenses were born in an era of offline, compiled blobs that received updates every month at the most, whereas modern software development is much more focused on freemium and SaaS.
The copyright itself couldn't be used to take the code down, because the open license allows the customer to do exactly that.
Theoretically, a customer can buy the software, fork it, and turn it into an open source fork. Without the support contract to receive updates, though, I doubt that'll be very useful in the end.
At worst, a competitor buys your software and uses your own software against you by analysing, publishing and extending it, and selling support contracts in your market. However, I strongly doubt there's much money to be made that way.
I'm no businessman either so I wouldn't know what brings companies to make software like that. I think these licenses were born in an era of offline, compiled blobs that received updates every month at the most, whereas modern software development is much more focused on freemium and SaaS.