upvote
This is why I prefer the AGPL over the GPL. But isn't this the entire point of open source? So long as it is attributed/following the license, who cares if they're selling it or not?
reply
I agree with your analogy, but as an aside... "Cuck license" is not a phrase that's a term of art outside this blog post and I don't think it's a useful lens for understanding how software licenses work.

It also seems divorced from the practice of intentional cuckoldry. Any "bulls" would know that a more apt analogue would put Amazon and Delve and others as the cucks (expending energy to create arrangements where they can sit back and watch others do the work), and the open source contributors as the 'bulls' or 'cuckqueans' (the ones who actually do the work, but they do it because they find it enjoyable).

Luckily, software licenses aren't really so difficult to understand, and it behooves us to understand them in specifics. So I don't think it serves an illustrative purpose to insist on an analogy where writing software is like being physically intimate with someone elses spouse. I think the author just intends to signal political affiliation through the soft-shibboleth of Being the Type of Guy to Say Cuck A Lot.

reply
> outside this blog post

It's a /g/ meme, from where luke presumably got it.

reply
> I think the author just intends to signal political affiliation through the soft-shibboleth of Being the Type of Guy to Say Cuck A Lot

agreed, I got strong edgelord vibes off that. completely distracted from any message the poster wanted to convey.

reply
>. You cannot prevent people from making money off your free work, and the fact that it is a profitable endeavour for them will lead to them spending money on marketing

You can in-fact file a copyright claim against them if they fail to provide the source and attribution.

reply
You can submit a DMCA takedown notice to the app store, and they must take it offline for 14 days and give you the contact details of the perpetrator, or else you can sue the app store for not doing that.
reply
> they must take it offline for 14 days and give you the contact details of the perpetrator

These specific actions are definitely not part of the DMCA. In fact, it's basically the reverse. Unless you hire a lawyer to represent you, you must dox yourself to file a DMCA claim, which will involve handing over your name, address, and phone number to the platform committing the infringement against you, with the DMCA complaint requiring swearing under penalty of perjury that you are not falsifying any details.

> else you can [sue] the app store for not doing that.

This is, I think, the fantasy belief of someone who has never engaged with the legal system. You submit a notice of copyright infringement. They ignore it. Now what? Are you, as an independent developer, prepared to spend years of your life fighting to have it taken offline, out of pure spite, because you aren't going to get anything near the effort you put in? Even if you "win", you still lose, because it's just not worth it.

This is assuming you're even aware of the infringement. It was pure luck that I happened to discover the copyright infringement, in my case. It would be very easy for somebody to never discover that their game was re-labelled with a new name in a foreign app store. And once aware of it, actually trying to enforce my copyright quickly disabused me of the notion that copyright law could ever benefit individuals in any meaningful way.

reply