Why are the proprietary ad-infested Android forks tolerated?

[duane]

Google tends to respect DMCA notices

Judging by earlier posts, your experience doesn't seem to be typical. : )

[Mantar]

GPL/LGPL cases rarely ever go to court, because it's open-and-shut and ironclad. You either follow the terms of the license, or admit you're infringing copyright. Trying to find a loophole is a potential angle, but the FSF lawyers were very careful to allow none.

[gpcf]

Advtrains was relicensed to AGPL yesterday, to have some more leverage against rogue server operators or said android forks.

[Hume2]

How does AGPL help in this?

[gpcf]

AGPL forces server owners to release the source used on their servers.

[Hume2]

Thanks, I didn't know that. Note that WorldEdit is also AGPL.

P.S. I finally have some leverage to make CalebJ make his repos public, thanks a lot! :D

[Hume2]

I'm not seeing how exactly this will help unless all mods are going to use the AGPL license. I was reading the AGPL license and it says only that the mod must be released, not necessarily all mods on the server. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

[gpcf]

well, yes, only the mod itself, not the other mods. It would help if Multikraft took advtrains, applied it to their server, fixed a couple of bugs and refused to release them. AGPL guards against proprietary enhancements of your mods better than GPL, since GPL can be circumvented through running the improved mod internally on the server and not releasing it.