My point is, if you don't have a lot of money to start litigating against the violations, the opportunists don't care and will continue to trample all over your "free and open source" software.
It not enforceable without a lot of money and the opportunists know that.
> You're free to take that bet, we'll see.
There is nothing to bet here. Truth Social is a clone of Mastodon (AGPLv3) and all they did was disclose the vanilla source code and not the modifications which that is required by the license. [0]
The same happened with Revolt (AGPLv3) and Andrew Tate's platform [1] and they never released any of the source code at all, nor could the developer enforce anything. [1]
Unless the license holder has a lot of money for litigation, it is unenforceable.
You're free to take that bet, we'll see.
My point is, if you don't have a lot of money to start litigating against the violations, the opportunists don't care and will continue to trample all over your "free and open source" software.
It not enforceable without a lot of money and the opportunists know that.
> You're free to take that bet, we'll see.
There is nothing to bet here. Truth Social is a clone of Mastodon (AGPLv3) and all they did was disclose the vanilla source code and not the modifications which that is required by the license. [0]
The same happened with Revolt (AGPLv3) and Andrew Tate's platform [1] and they never released any of the source code at all, nor could the developer enforce anything. [1]
[0] https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/open-source/
[1] https://insrt.uk/post/andrew-tate-stealing-software-revolt/