Step 1: discontinue the public repository, step 2: sell access to your GPL codebase.
The GPL (and even the AGPL) doesn't require you to make your modified source code publicly available (Debian explicitly considers licenses with this requirement non-free). The GPL only states you need to provide your customers with source code.
Sure, but it also allows your customers to modify the source code you provided, and distribute/sell it. With MIT they can simply relicence it and sell binary-only versions. The open-ness stops at that point.
> Multiple citizens faced police raids, investigations, fines, or suspended sentences (jail risk if violated) for online posts calling Green politician Robert Habeck derogatory names like "idiot" or "moron," or sharing mocking memes [...]
The police raids were done because of the posted Nazi images, NOT because of the Habeck insults.
Sure thing, as long as it doesn't require any permissions. I have installed multiple apks on my phone from unknown people. Note that Google's requirement is also for completely permissionless apps like games.
There are about a half dozen permissions that are regularly abused by malware. These permissions are also extremely useful for a ton of completely legitimate features.
I am pretty confident that if Google had enabled this policy only for apps which use these permissions that the community would still be upset.
3D was also different (OpenGL ES vs OpenGL mess), only now it's starting to become kinda the same with Vulkan.
reply