Open source licenses are effectively unenforceable now
Two separate HN threads hit on the same problem simultaneously. Bambu Lab, the 3D printer company, has been violating PrusaSlicer's AGPL license since their fork, and a separate thread covered the resulting community backlash with the memorable headline 'Fuck you, Bambu.' The comments on both threads converged quickly: enforcing open source licenses costs significant money, proving violations is hard, and companies in jurisdictions that do not respect Western IP law simply do not care.
The pattern is straightforward. AGPL and similar copyleft licenses were designed to prevent exactly this kind of commercial free-riding, but they depend on the violating party caring about legal exposure. A well-resourced company that has decided to ignore the license can do so for years before any enforcement action lands. The community's primary recourse is reputational, and that only works if customers care.
The Bambu situation is particularly sharp because the company makes popular consumer hardware. Prusa's users care. Most enterprise software customers would not notice or care if their vendor violated an open source license.
So what?
If your product is built on AGPL or similar licenses, you cannot assume the license alone protects you commercially. Founders building on open-source foundations should understand that license enforcement is a legal and financial fight, not a moral one. If you are building open-source tooling and hoping copyleft creates a commercial moat, the Bambu case is a clear data point that it does not, at least not against well-funded or geographically insulated competitors.