This appears to me much more like blantant self promotion rather than attempt to participate in the discussion. Your tool has none of the requested features (self hosted file transfer using the native share dialog.)
> though I still have to change the license to be more permissive (I've decided that I won't pursue this as a commercial thing, just open a ticket if you want me to change the license sooner than whenever I work on this next).
Guess that'll have to be now then. Getting this sort of crap is what makes me wonder why I bother putting this work out there in the first place.
> Your tool has none of the requested features
The main premise was a way to have file sharing between tablets, phones, and computers. This does that. It is open source (as of now) and has an Android share app to boot[1]. Anything else you're very welcome to make yourself, it's not a commercial plug, I'm obviously disclosing my affiliation, I host this on my personal machine at home, you're just welcome to make use of this or not if you don't like it.
[1] https://github.com/lgommans/dro.pm/tree/master/android/dropm...
Neither your initial comment, nor the project readme discuss the Android App. You have to browse the project dirextory to find out that it exists. The Android app has the dro.pm url hardcorded as a string and generally does not appear setup to work with a self-hosted solution.
All of this is fixable, but it very much belies a project that is immature. I would personally be uncomfortable promoting this as a solution without being very clear about the limitations and work required to fit the specidies use case.
I definitely never intended to say that you shouldn't ever run an open source project. My earlier wording was not done well. My point is that if you are burning out this early in open sourcing this project, then maybe this particular project is not meaningful or valuable enough to be worth it to you.
You were just given carte blanche to host it, by the author in public. If that isn't a legal exception, I really, really do not know what is.
Also, if you do self-host it, who is going to find out and sue you? Software licenses are not magical. The hammer of god is only going to come down on you if the person:
a) sees you do it
b) has the power to stop you
And if they're outside of the GNU project or the Linux foundation, they very likely do not! And regardless, that only matters if:
c) you have the money to pay for the damages
Which unless you're rich (I dunno, maybe you are rich), you probably don't!
and if you run a business, it's automatically a no-go.
however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored.
note that i am not suggesting that the author of the product should change their license, or clarify it with regards to self-hosting, just that your advice to ignore the actual license is dangerous.
Now with my point in general,
> however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored.
Right, but if they are ignored by large companies, there's no chance in hell that we're ever going to find out about it. The fact of the matter is that big companies really do not have to give a shit, at this point, because even if someone challenges them, it's unlikely that any one person is going to have the financing to win the war of attrition that will follow.
Likewise, if you take someone's code and it's not open source, and you don't actually distribute it, but instead just host it, and you're small enough, then the license itself does not matter.
The claim that pointing out that the rules only matter as far as the rules can be enforced, actually damages the rules, is utterly absurd. The people who will want to ignore the rules and do whatever, and bank on not getting caught are already doing that.
that may be the case, but that makes it a custum exemption that is not vetted by lawyers. for my personal use that my be ok, but for my company it is not, no matter how small my company is, i just can't take the risk. not only the risk getting sued, which indeed may be minimal, if non-existant, but also the risk that any of my current or worse future business partners, investors or clients have less trust in an unvetted license than me.
and from a client perspective, i do not want to deal with a business that doesn't take licensing seriously.
the difference between a big company ignoring licenses and me is, that a big business can afford to deal with getting caught, but if i am wrong, i am ruined.