Huh? He released his stuff as open source. That's exactly what other open source users using GPL-style licenses want. Nintendo are the ones not releasing their software as open source. They're the ones using open source without giving back, thus breaking the chain. (Which permissive BSD-style licenses do allow.)

It seems like you're drawing some false equivalence between the open source developer and Nintendo.

Open source licenses say nothing about giving back and in fact the OSI quite deliberately moved away from that idea as a key differentiator between themselves and the FSF.

If someone wants to distribute their software with the expectation or requirement that derivative works in some sense give back to the community they should use the GPL or AGPL.

>That's exactly what other open source users using GPL-style licenses want.

LLVM is NOT GPL.

>He released his stuff as open source

I bet his compiler is opensource too.

So what point are you trying to make exactly? He's using open source software and then contributing back to the open source community; he's a model citizen of the community. Nintendo, meanwhile, is taking without giving.

It's node.js, I don't think there's much choice.

Do we know this?