Projects are free to choose permissive licenses like BSD.
Companies are then free to use the code however they like and not contribute back in any way.
Projects are then free to be annoyed by this because they hoped that companies would contribute time and/or resouces out their own good will.
Finally, projects are free to move to "business source" licenses because good will didn't work, so they need to utilize the legal system to ensure that large companies help sustain the project.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Projects choosing a permissive license like BSD is utilizing the legal system. BSD is a contract, a copyright license. It imposes restrictions/limitations/obligations, which can/would be enforced by a court.
I said:
> so they need to utilize the legal system to ensure that large companies help sustain the project.
No shit they were using the legal system before with the BSD license. I am saying that they are now using the legal system to ensure companies contribute, which is not something the BSD license did.
Wait not like that.
Have you ever set lenient guidelines, people took advantage of them in a way you didn't like, so you were forced to tighten your guidelines in a way you didn't originally want to?
eg: a professor establishes a generous late homework policy, which most students use reasonably, except a few who decide to turn in everthing on the last day of the term and make the TA's lives hell. Prof is allowed to be disappointed and then adjust their future terms' policies to be more specific (eg "submit assignments max 5 days late").
