Using GPL code does not make you an expert in writing GPL code or in the value of the work that goes into GPL code. YOu continue to assume expertise by association. It takes more than that.
I specifically license most of my code under Apache License 2.0, rather than GPL. Apache 2 allows any extra code to be of a different license than the original code. This is supposed to be compatible with GPLv3 for dual licensing, but not v1 or v2. I'm not a fan of v3, because it was written largely to combat tivoization and I've worked on hardware projects involving FOSS code that make v3 problematic. Which is why things like Toybox have to exist, because SFC can be a bunch of fourth point of contacts.
Question, Levant. An actual serious one. Why do you always assume someone does not have specific experience, instead of asking?
I have written some open source software. I own the code. I'm willing to share it. The only thing I ask is that I get the credit by leaving my name in the code and in the About box. Having my name in those places has real monetary value because people see my work and associate my name with the quality of the work and means I have cache that I can take to a consulting proposal or a job interview. When you use my code without crediting me, I do not get that cache. That has real financial implications.
Like I said. You and I have differing ethics. I'm not going to get into yet another long discussion with you. I'm cancelling my subscription to this thread so have at it. Defend the Government's theft of intellectual property to your heart's content.
The first above paragraph makes a lot of sense. The second, not so much. You're apparently upset at "Government's theft of intellectual property" (which is actually a government's vendor's noncompliance of licensing requirements). Fair enough, one should be. Your concerns would be entirely solved via what everyone else said. They just need to put the licensing and copyright information back on to be compliant.
I'm not sure why you get so bent out of shape, considering you tend to be the party that makes uninformed assumptions about other people. When anyone more or less politely calls you on it, you get more bent out of shape that folks don't take your word. Maybe I'm alone here, but it seems like you are getting upset that anyone doesn't automatically agree with you, because it is you saying so rather than the strength of your arguments. You could always just stand on "It's my subjective opinion", and you'd win the argument. Because any subjective opinion is right, to the holder of the opinion.
You could say "I think of IP infringement as legally constituting theft, even though legally no one else currently should. I would like to redefine theft to legally include copyright infringement and other intellectual property infringement, with X as the sanctions." This would be an understandable position. Folks may or may not agree, but it's obviously valid. Your beliefs are your beliefs. Problem is when you try to insist your opinion is the objective reality, apparently at times when it is not.
