The GPs project will become less relevant as the Microsoft fork becomes more popular, when it is fully irrelevant due to incompatible changes they can rugpull and everyone will have to pay them.
With GPL you don't have to actively work to upstream your patches, but in practice you can't withhold your patches from upstream. If you add a feature, they get to have it too.
Unlike permissively licensed software, where you can add proprietary features.
Depends how savvy your users are, and what your users lose if they do send your patches upstream. For example, GRSec or RedHat both drop you as a customer (so no security updates) if you republish their patches publicly. Or a paid iPhone app's users probably wouldn't know what source code is, let alone where/how/bother to republish it for the benefit of other users.
Ideas are not copyrightable, so you can't prevent anyone from using them without keeping them secret, and even then folks might come up with the same idea independently.
True, although software patents aren't supposed to be a thing in some places, so your success in protecting software ideas might be location dependent, or time dependent as case law changes. Thats probably why I forgot about them.
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.
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.
It's your work. Negotiate any terms you want. Extract as many benefits as you can get away with. If they accept it, you win. If they don't, they gotta abide by the AGPLv3 and everyone wins.
reply