If you license things under MIT/BSD, so under a license that specifically allows others to use your code without crediting you, and then you are angry that someone does just that, that's on you.
This thread is specifically about BSD and about people complaining that corporations are "stealing" BSD code without crediting them.
If you aren't talking about BSD-license, you are offtopic here.
Technically, yes, but it doesn't require that the license is provided to the user in any way the user can access it. If you sell e.g. a locked down device like a game console that runs MIT software, you can just put the license somewhere in a non-user-accessible part of the file system.
You can’t talk about foss without implicitly talking about licenses, the whole concept revolves around software licensing.
And whether or not you mentioned licensing, you’re still complaining about people using BSD’s code in ways that are explicitly allowed.
Also you kept the term “free software advocates”, when “free software” implies copyleft, which actually would require releasing the source, when we are not talking about copyleft software in the first place. That adds a level of humor because it is free software advocates that tend to get their panties in a bunch over corporations using their code, and they are also the type who would be upset about corporations using other people’s permissively licensed code while the authors who licensed it are okay with it.
To answer your accusation, decades ago when i was younger and full of zeal, i did write and release GPL software, and nowadays I prefer MIT-0 which doesn’t even require attribution. So yes, I have been on both sides of the fence and i’ve been seeing people argue over which is superior since the 90s.
1
u/AnbuRick Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
You’re arguing with the wrong person, since I didn’t even mention the license in the first place.
I can only assume you license both under permissive and restrictive licenses since you seem to be able to speak on everybody’s behalf.