The reason behind this mischief on the developer's part appears to be retaliation—against mega-corporations and commercial consumers of open-source projects who extensively rely on cost-free and community-powered software but do not, according to the developer, give back to the community.
Give away your stuff for free and then get butthurt when people use it.
The first step in awakening to the predatory religion of 'open source software'. It's not slavery if you elect to work for other people for free, but it's still immoral.
Companies know there's enough naive idiots out there to do a sizable amount of their work for them. It's the 2010's version of the 2000's unpaid internships. I'm glad this guy is able to dig himself out of this trap.
What I remember from open source software there was a part of the agreement that said anyone using it must release a version of their project as open source also. Kind of like software that is free for non-commercial use. Fortune 500 company's wouldn't be able to use it legally.
Depends on the license. GPLv3 and AGPLv3 code is rarely used by corporations. Some ban it explicitly, because it requires all derivative software also be released as open source.
MIT, Apache, BSD, etc are shit licenses, because they allow anyone to use, or even hack and modify your code, and not release the updated version for commercial products.
People don't like the GPL/FSF because there is an aspect to communist philosophy within in ... keeping a lot of GPL stuff kinda in the past. But it also means people who use GPL stuff know what they're doing, and know how to keep their userbase small and their software from being exploited.
(post is archived)