The point is the licenses are irrelevant: The IP lawyer said they take quietly, they incorporate it into their products which they sell.

the licences are being ignored. It's what she said.

BSD content can be taken without contributing back, it's in the license. Copyleft content cannot. That's the main difference, and even Google doesn't want to touch copyleft content with a 10-foot pole because of the fear they'd have to share their internal sauce, so I presume companies still take licenses into account.

Stop ignoring what I said. It's not about BSD licenses it's about more restrictive ones

You:

> This is the exact reason why copyleft licenses are important: you can reuse (A)GPL content, but if you do so the result must be given back to the community

Me: the frigging licences are being ignored. Giving back to the community is not happening. Code is being stolen. Are you trying to ignore what's being said?