but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details. the details only matter for those who are not into FOSS and are forced to comply with the license without having the desire to do so.
one could argue that a complicated license reduces the attraction of my software, but again, if i am not out to become popular, i would not care about that. and for my paying customers they should not care either, because they are still getting more than they would from proprietary software, or they are paying me to get an exception.
so if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck. it's not my job to accommodate that.
> but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details.
That’s only true if you also don’t care what other people are required to do with your code. People who want copyleft enforced for their contributions will care if the license actually enforces it, and how.
> if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck
Sure, fine. My whole point in the last comment is that it’s complicated for the /creator/. Wasn’t talking about the user. A badly written license cuts both ways.
but it isn't complicated for me as creator. i just share the whole thing.
and the difficulty to enforce i already addressed in my first comment: if you have to defend the license against an abuser then the AGPL is challenging. so i do accept that.
one could argue that a complicated license reduces the attraction of my software, but again, if i am not out to become popular, i would not care about that. and for my paying customers they should not care either, because they are still getting more than they would from proprietary software, or they are paying me to get an exception.
so if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck. it's not my job to accommodate that.