[davidjgraph]

In my experience, the vast majority of developers completely ignore/misunderstand licensing most/all of the time.

The common excuse is that the intent by publishing source code online is that you clearly are allowing everybody to use it freely as they wish. I have no doubt the licenses on Bitbucket are not followed correctly more often than not.

Atlassian, if you've followed them, have always been a very transparent, developer-centric company, the behaviour of neither the founders, nor the company has ever suggested they are in the slightest bit interested in being arseholes in the manner being suggested here.

Yet somehow there's a switch from 'intent' to being licensing experts when it suits.

[jey]

The problem is that control of the company could be transferred to other actors, in which case the original founders' "intent" becomes irrelevant. So the best thing to do is to encode the intended terms explicitly in the contract.

[davidjgraph]

In most cases there's some clause saying "we can pretty much do anything to these terms, as long as we give you 30 days notice". They can be as explicit as they like, the next company can just change them.

It's not that I disagree with you, I'm just calling out what I view as "selective license goggles", which I find particularly ironic given the nature of the service in question.