In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it. So the

In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it. So the license does not apply with this exemption in place, and that would be arguable in a court of law. Now with my point in general, > however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. Right, but if they are ignored by large companies, there's no chance in hell that we're ever going to find out about it. The fact of the matter is that big companies really do not have to give a shit, at this point, because even if someone challenges them, it's unlikely that any one person is going to have the financing to win the war of attrition that will follow. Likewise, if you take someone's code and it's not open source, and you don't actually distribute it, but instead just host it, and you're small enough, then the license itself does not matter. The claim that pointing out that the rules only matter as far as the rules can be enforced, actually damages the rules, is utterly absurd. The people who will want to ignore the rules and do whatever, and bank on not getting caught are already doing that.