> Innovation dies when creators can't create without someone ripping off their work against the terms they release it under.
I strongly disagree. There would be more innovation if code couldn't be copyrighted or kept secret. See: all of open source.
> I've considered open sourcing some of my product's components under a source available but otherwise proprietary license
What's the point of that? This isn't useful to anyone. The fact you even consider it shows you don't understand open source. I'm sure you happily use open source code yourself though.
> There would be more innovation if code couldn't be copyrighted or kept secret. See: all of open source.
I actually agree. However this is not what's happening. Copilot effectvely removes copyright from FLOSS code, but doesn't touch proprietary software. FLOSS loses it's teeth against the corporations.
I'm the author of about a dozen popular AGPL and GPL projects, but please tell me how I don't understand open source.
The purpose of releasing source available but proprietary code is so that users can learn and integrate into it, and making it available lets anyone learn how it works. The only reason I even considered making the source available is balance between 1) needing to eat and 2) valuing open source enough to risk #1.
I strongly disagree. There would be more innovation if code couldn't be copyrighted or kept secret. See: all of open source.
> I've considered open sourcing some of my product's components under a source available but otherwise proprietary license
What's the point of that? This isn't useful to anyone. The fact you even consider it shows you don't understand open source. I'm sure you happily use open source code yourself though.