I agree, after this happened to me I learned of a few other situations where the same thing happened to other friends.
On my end if was a mix of naivete and flattery which made me want to take the meeting. I suspect it is the same case for others. I will not make the same mistake the next time it happens.
Well your license is only as good as you are able to enforce it. Even with the law there is no guarantees.
I grew up thinking that people would follow the spirit of open source rather than the specific letter of the law. This is obviously not true, and probably never has been.
No license stops someone from spinning off an OSS project into their closed-sourced enterprise offering. It's just sad that most corps see nothing wrong with this
The GPL (and AGPL) are easy to comply with for a corporation, or anyone else really. Just redistribute your modifications under the same license, and ensure users can run modified versions on devices you distribute and you are done.
Were folks under the impression there were other options for license violations? Your comment implies that a lawsuit being the only recourse to enforce a license renders that license moot.
Some people just hoped that picking a corporate-unfriendly license would be enough of a deterrent by itself, because most folks can't actually afford to sue. But infringers, big and small, are increasingly realising that these licenses are toothless by themselves, they need to be backed by money.
I don’t disagree with any of that, I think the challenge is certainly the costs of enforcement. For GPL licenses anyway (I realize the OP used the more permissive MIT license) I think their is (or there should be) a non-profit foundation established to collectivize the funding and legal actions necessary to support open source projects in these kinds of scenarios. Certainly, pursuing license violations in a manner that maximizes awareness and makes examples out of violators should prompt others to reconsider their actions.
> I think the challenge is certainly the costs of enforcement.
IMO, this is fundamentally a mismatch between how software is developed in practice and how copyright works.
If software was like a book, where it's finished and published once, then simply registering it with the copyright office would be all anyone needs to do: up to $10k/copy statutory damages is a stiff enough deterrent that few large companies would want to take the risk. And even if they did, it'd be easy to find a lawyer to take the case on contingency.
As a non-lawyer, that doesn't seem to match nearly as well with software as a constantly evolving work. But I'm not an expert - maybe periodically submitting versions is enough.
Software Freedom Conservancy are the most visible GPL enforcers these days. The FSF probably does some enforcement too, but doesn't seem to talk about it as much.
> For GPL licenses anyway...I think their[sic] is (or there should be) a non-profit foundation established to collectivize the funding and legal actions
Hence my thinking there is. I kept thinking EFF for some reason, but I knew that wasn't right. EFF are the ones who consistently predict which anti-privacy/anti-consumer laws will definitely get passed.
On my end if was a mix of naivete and flattery which made me want to take the meeting. I suspect it is the same case for others. I will not make the same mistake the next time it happens.