[mmt]

> 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue.

As the parent pointed out, purely-internal isn't what he meant. Distribution can be non-public, which is distribution nonetheless. Such distribution would require availability of source, but that availability wouldn't be public, if the original distribution wasn't public.

The parent seems to be focusing on "theft" (GPL violation) by relatively-unknown companies, which didn't necessarily occur. It's plausible that it did, but, even if the violation were corrected, since that correction doesn't require public release of source code, is likely irrelevant to the overall discussion.

You seem to be focusing only on publically-released software, which may or may not be the majority (by whatever measure).

I have no "side" in this, just trying to understand the points, which I've failed to grasp. Are you talk past each other?

[lmaximus1983]

The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes.

The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back". One of my points is that they don't even do it though they legally should.

License arguments wasn't the point of my response. The point is that people will abuse goodwill and pretending that it doesn't happen is naive.

[mmt]

> The event did occur. I saw the source with my own eyes.

You didn't say so, and, even now, you're only implicitly saying there was a GPL violation. The details are important, in order to further understanding.

> The point that you keep on ignoring is that the OP said "companies have to contribute back".

I'm pretty sure I'm not ignoring it, because it didn't happen. That's likely the source of my confusion. You've certainly said so repeatedly, but I'm missing where anyone else in the conversation has said so (hence my thinking it's a strawman).

> One of my points is that they don't even do it though they legally should.

This does sound like you are, again, saying there are circumstances where contributing "back" is legally required, which is the assertion that prompted my own original response. I don't believe those circumstances ever exist. The only obligation is providing (contributing) source code forward. Only when "forward" is the public at large does that end up being, as a side effect, "back".

> The point is that people will abuse goodwill and pretending that it doesn't happen is naive.

I doubt anyone here is actually naive enough to believe it never happens, but there may be a belief that it's rare or exceptional. Without large-sample-size evidence, this can be short-circuited to the usual cynicism vs. "people are basically good" argument.

[lmaximus1983]

> This does sound like you are, again, saying there are circumstances where contributing "back" is legally required

NOPE. The context is the original posters words. We are talking about that and I am saying that contributing back doesn't happen magically because of the GPL.

I suggest you learn to keep the context of the argument in mind rather than keep focusing on being pedantic.

I am done with this conversation now.

[mmt]

> the original posters words

Since those words never mentioned contributing back, I was, understandably confused.

> I am saying that contributing back doesn't happen magically because of the GPL.

I don't see where anyone was saying otherwise, ergo you're arguing against a strawman.

> keep the context of the argument in mind rather than keep focusing on being pedantic

That only works for making a (counter-)argument, not attempting to understand the argument(s) in the first place.

In the instant case, I'm now convinced that any disagreement was based on a flawed premise, or there was no disagreement at all. My understanding of hwo the GPL functions (and is intended to function) remains unchanged.