none of these public licenses - or any other software user licenses in use - are ever going to withstand even a cursory legal challenge should one come up.
It is possible for at least an open source license to be enforceable through the courts (and the Artistic License is considered one of the weakest examples from a legal standpoint -- something like the GPLv2 or v3 would most definitely be upheld by the courts); proprietary EULAs are on shakier ground, though, as a little-known aspect of
makes it so that the terms of an EULA must have a nexus with the licensor's exclusive rights under copyright in order to be enforceable under copyright law. (Terms that don't are at risk of being severed, depending on the stance the court takes on the negotiating power of the parties.)
OTOH, you do get this right:
Not that it really matters, since a) 99% of all code, close or open, is of minimal commercial value,
Most code is either custom-tailored to a (business/operational) environment, or is a piece of infrastructure that might as well be shared among many, or is simply "glue" -- there's very little "secret sauce" in any given codebase that's useful outside it.
b) it is particularly difficult bordering on impossible to create anything innovative by open-source means,
There are reasons for research projects (e.g. the original Berkeley SPICE) and even company-developed infrastructure projects (CMake) to be open-sourced -- in the corporate case, it may even yield a better
result than trying to support a piece of software well outside the core business line of the company "on their own."
Also, distributing the source with the app isn't actually as onerous a condition in many custom software development efforts as one thinks...
In actual fact, it is different, which is why they won't hold up in court, but that's neither here nor there. The shrink-wrap licenses most software firms use (e,g., the Microsoft EULA) won't either, though for different reasons, yet while they have been applied in courts many times, no one has challenged the legal validity of either type of license as a class of licenses. Yet. Both closed and open source OTS software are living on borrowed time.
Still wrong -- see the first court case I linked above.
An attitude I've seen a lot from commercial developers is this: “we will not work with GPL or LGPL software at all”. Fortunately for them, there's now pretty much everything they actually need under some other license.
For libraries, that can
be reasonable -- for tooling though, there's no reason to avoid (L)GPL at all.
And neither's business model involves software development.
They do finance a fair bit of contribution to the community -- it's more correct to say that neither's business model involves the selling of software as a product.
This is false. As they say, they don't mean "free as in beer", but free in the sense of right to see, edit and redistribute the source. You can charge for software licensed under the GPL. You are simply required to disclose the source code. If you've ever tried to compile any open source projects, you might find that just paying for the binary may be more convenient than trying to build it yourself.
You can also charge for related services (like RedHat does). You could build a software services company on top of GPL licensed code, by giving support to users. The only thing you can't do is hide the source.
Yeah -- as I said, disclosing source code isn't as onerous a condition in quite a bit of commercial work as one would think; in fact, I'd call someone dumb
to accept a custom software contract without receiving a copy of the source code, because you don't want to be held hostage by a program you can't reasonably modify or ask anyone else to modify for you because the original developers are gone.
Selling GPL software is like selling water right next to a public fountain. You might get someone to pay, but it's not a business plan that any sane person would consider.
The point usually is selling support
not a product
-- RedHat provides that warm, fuzzy guarantee that there's someone who can be called, badgered, etal at 2AM when the sysadmin is out of ideas. A large shop might go with a non-commercial distro such as Debian, because they have enough in-house expertise to fix just about anything that can go wrong at 2AM, but that's more or less having to provide your own safety net instead of renting RedHat's much more battle-tested one.