That's the entire point of releasing code under the GPL and LGPL: If a company you don't like starts using it, you sue them.

I think, despite the massive bold font sizes you are using to draw attention to the things you are writing (which is always a bad sign :/), you don't understand how these licenses work or what the underlying threat model I care about here is: Substrate was open source twice in its life, once under BSD and once under LGPL, and as far as I can tell the same underlying problem (that there exists sufficient motivation in the community of developers and sufficient lack of care in the community of users to utilize a fractured set of closed stacks rather than a unified open stack) exists with usage of either license.

You've become the walled garden with very low walls, with the ability to raise those walls at any time and become like Apple.

I don't control the jailbreak tools themselves, so there's actually a rather interesting check and balance against this weird threat model you have come up with happening. Regardless: I maintain that this threat model happens instantaneously in your preferred future, as the only serious attempts to build alternative stacks have always stressed the importance of DRM at their core.

Much like the people who vote away their freedoms in the name of security, you've done the same by closing your software that you made in the name of freedom and jailbreaking, by holding the community away from themselves being able to work with Substrate, etc.

You continue to try to appeal to some intrinsic interest I have in people having access to this technology in the abstract: my only interest in any of this technology is to try to work towards an open ecosystem for everyone on every device in the long term.

What you are essentially trying to do is to force me to do something I have no interest in doing, for you, for free. You want me to work on writing Substrate, something that is really hard to do and which I only take occasional and momentary joy constructing, and give it directly to the people who will use it to do things that I don't want to exist.

Again, I reiterate my point: if you truly believe in free software, hardware, and open platforms, release your source code with a licence where people can only use it if they keep the source code open.

You left out "free hardware and open platforms" in your list of requirements. GPLv3 sort of helps with "free hardware", but it doesn't help with "open platforms". I don't know of any source code license that would be capable of protecting the thing I actually bother to do any of this work to accomplish, and it is weirdly selfish of you to demand that I undermine the goal I'm actually fighting for here.

Essentially, you are working with an extremely naive concept of what the goal of open is, one that is entirely rooted in "open source". As I have stated: I think that "open source" is a short term and often even short-sighted goal. The GPLv2 was somewhat interesting, but it totally failed because it concentrated on source code and someone realized they could sidestep the entire problem with closed hardware. From my perspective, the GPLv2 is essentially useless: anything less than GPLv3 accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Now, let's take a step back: one could argue I should license Substrate itself under GPL. Ignoring for a second that that is illegal on the face of it (any third-party app installed from the App Store cannot be linked against a GPL library, such as Substrate, even dynamically when the executable binds), the reason why this sounds cool is because "we like free software, and having free software is really important, and that's why saurik advocates for GPL in the first place".

However, the entire reason I wrote Substrate is to back a platform whose purpose is, in turn, to exist to be able to make an argument that we need to be able to have access to our hardware. Frustratingly, a world where there are a ton of only-free extensions in existence is a world where jailbreaking is effectively illegal, as the argument the copyright office is most interested in hearing is "there was a market involving actual money where people doing this thing built stuff of value and then sold it to other people for a profit".

Therefore, for the end goal of "hardware needs to be open", with the intermediate step of "make the copyright office think there is some value to doing this", we actually can't release core platform components under extremely free software licenses, as that will fail to build a commercial ecosystem of copyrightable intellectual property that can be used to build a record that there is a reason why we should keep any of this hardware open at all. Now that we are already falling backwards, I believe that I can make, and in fact already have made, an argument for why I felt the need to fall all the way back to "closed source" as the only way to pull off this particular trick.

Interesting, right? This is the world in which I live: the only thing I care about is being able to make that argument to the copyright office. In all seriousness, the only thing I have enjoyed doing in the past two years of working on this miserable platform and having all of these damned arguments with everyone about any number of different "why" questions was when I stood before the copyright office panel as someone in the middle of a profitable ecosystem and was able to impress the hell out of them with some testimony about Cydia and they thought I wasn't some crazy weirdo. I hate this job and I hate everything about it every single day that I'm forced to spend any of my life working on it: you are insanely lucky that I wrote any of this supposedly-unique stuff in the first place, much less continue to work on it today :/.

This is actually something in here that is very similar to the stereotypical moral question of "there is a train about to run into ten people; you can flip a switch and choose to make the train follow a different track and kill one other person instead; do you do this to kill fewer people, or does this feel like murder?". Personally, I have not found a way to allow Substrate--which is honestly a rather tiny amount of code in the grand scheme of things--to be open source while still demonstrating the value of open hardware and simultaneously showing that this can be done on top of an open platform. This is the one person I killed to save nine.

If you really really hate me and really want me to go away and stop making the world worse, under your definition of what it means to make the world worse, it is really really simple: just reimplement my software, name it something other than Cydia (which I shouldn't have to mention, but people have been really stupid about this), and get some users to use it (or if you want to do it really quickly, convince BigBoss to support it): that will get rid of me really quick, as I've pretty much been at my snapping point now for quite a while; and you have an existence proof that it shouldn't take more than one really smart person to do it, as clearly I'm nothing more than one really smart person (I promise I'm not a hive mind: I pinky swear ;P).