[flagged]
I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.
Just give it another name that doesn’t imply wrong assumption what can and can’t do with it.
> Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us.
So why don't you advocate for Free Software which has always worked in the interest of the commons and provided the GPL as a way to combat this, instead of something else that isn't free and restricts the freedom of users more than a weak license?
So what? They make something better, so I take what they did and improve my product.
It's not my problem if someone from the Big Red East does something with my work as long as they share it too.
They also don't always do that. Look at the super popular BOOX e-ink notebooks. 100% in violation of the GPL, and has been for years, yet available to buy in common retailers such as Best Buy.
These are edging out popular devices, such as reMarkable, which are GPL compliant.
Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually:
> DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/
But I do agree with the sentiment otherwise.