You can't really release code into the wild without some form of licensing because companies would just steal it and sue you (ahem Microsoft) so you do actually need some form of legal protection through licensing. It just depends on what license you want to use. GPL is one of the best because it forces anyone who uses your code to open source their entire project, while MIT and Apache just protect you from Microsoft suing you after they steal your code.
Windows is built on stolen software. Also Explorer stole components from other browsers to put them out of business. Same thing Google is doing with expanding Chrome and making it impossible for Firefox to keep up with the changes.
Mozilla is largely funded by Google though. But I agree they are using extremely-complicated "standards" as a way to create a monopoly on web technologies.
The Browser Wars wiki page is always a fun read. The only reason Firefox is still alive is because if it went under completely, Google would probably get slapped with and anti-trust. They want a browser that works, but doesn't have all the functionality of their flagship so they invest to keep the project running.
Also the EEE technique that Microsoft uses. It's way easier to pull off with non-GPL licensed codebases because they can literally just fork code and put it in their codebase without having to open it up. Meaning that the FOSS project will always be a few steps behind as long as they can keep adding closed features.
Yeah, they'd steal open source code then turn around and sue the creators for copywrite infringement. MIT and Apache exist to keep you safe from Microsoft stealing your work and putting you in jail. Well, mainly the jail part. They can still steal your work.
You can't really release code into the wild without some form of licensing because companies would just steal it and sue you (ahem Microsoft) so you do actually need some form of legal protection through licensing. It just depends on what license you want to use. GPL is one of the best because it forces anyone who uses your code to open source their entire project, while MIT and Apache just protect you from Microsoft suing you after they steal your code.
Which specific cases are we talking about?
Windows is built on stolen software. Also Explorer stole components from other browsers to put them out of business. Same thing Google is doing with expanding Chrome and making it impossible for Firefox to keep up with the changes.
Mozilla is largely funded by Google though. But I agree they are using extremely-complicated "standards" as a way to create a monopoly on web technologies.
The Browser Wars wiki page is always a fun read. The only reason Firefox is still alive is because if it went under completely, Google would probably get slapped with and anti-trust. They want a browser that works, but doesn't have all the functionality of their flagship so they invest to keep the project running.
Also the EEE technique that Microsoft uses. It's way easier to pull off with non-GPL licensed codebases because they can literally just fork code and put it in their codebase without having to open it up. Meaning that the FOSS project will always be a few steps behind as long as they can keep adding closed features.
I remember something about Microsoft claiming to own parts of Linux kernel.
Yeah, they'd steal open source code then turn around and sue the creators for copywrite infringement. MIT and Apache exist to keep you safe from Microsoft stealing your work and putting you in jail. Well, mainly the jail part. They can still steal your work.