[torben-friis]

I don't see it as fundamentally different to licences dictating personal vs commercial use, requiring attribution, etc.

People share their intellectual property however they see fit.

That's speaking about the general principle, I'm not discussing the specific actions taken by the link's author.

[gchamonlive]

I don't think in principle it applies either. Licenses are there to manage distribution and ownership not tech stack.

[skeledrew]

Legally, a license is applicable in any way the provider of the item with the license deems it to be. Unless there's a law/ruling in a relevant jurisdiction that explicitly states otherwise.

[gchamonlive]

"by using this lib you agree to give up your firstborn child to adoption". In any jurisdiction do we have to have an explicit law against sending your child to adoption? Because you can't make it illegal for people to put children to adoption, this is regular practice, so a license could enforce this?

[yetihehe]

If someone gives you conditions to which you don't agree, maybe don't use that lib?

Do you think you have some moral right to use the library and violate conditions to which you do not agree? Get another library or write your own.

[gchamonlive]

If the conditions are nefarious you have a moral imperative to disobey. That's called civil disobedience.

[yetihehe]

Yes, if your very living conditions depend on it. Not if you do it just to increase your big payout by a little bit. Using one library over other is not an issue of maintaining your basic living needs.

[skeledrew]

It can try, because you agreed by using the software. And if the owner/maintained tries, it'll be up to the lawyers and judge(s) to determine the way forward. Maybe it'll be found to be too onerous a request or something. But don't push the system; it might push back in a way that has repercussions for decades to come.