Depending on their opinion it could be

1. Because they prefer a fancier shell that isn’t bash
2. Because they prefer their shell scripts to be in standard POSIX Compliant shell language without the bash extensions and features
3. Most likely answer that bash is pretty good for hacking some stuff together, but not great for larger long term maintainable projects versus other programming languages.

I think it’s fun though, and I’m not going to be the one maintaining it 😛

There’s an ongoing lawsuit: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

It just takes forever and lots of money. That’s not a software license problem though, that’s more of an “American Legal System” problem. And I say that not to imply that it’s worse than other legal systems, just that I know it’s one with these problems and I don’t know about others.

MIT: The recipient of this source code can do with it as they please. That may include building it, distributing it, modifying it, building and distributing those modifications, commercializing it, whatever.

GPL: The recipient of this software, including builds of it, is entitled to the source code that was used to build it. Anyone with the source code can modify it, share those modifications, make builds with it, etc, but you cannot restrict the rights of the recipients of your builds more than the terms you yourself received the source code under. So you can make changes and distribute builds of those changes, but users you distribute builds to are also entitled to your code including the changes you made.

AGPL: Same as GPL, except the recipients of this software also include users of the software, such as over a network. This was because with SaaS suddenly people were using software they hadn’t “received”, because it was running on someone else’s computer and they only provided inputs and received outputs, so the licence was created to bring this back in line with the spirit of the GPL.

LGPL: You can use this library in your non-GPL code, and it doesn’t “infect” your entire codebase by extending the entitlement of the source code outside the library to all users of your builds. It does still entitle users to the source code of the library itself though, especially if you’ve made changes to the code of that library.

People often talk about the GPL preventing commercial uses, but that’s actually not true. You’re allowed to sell GPL software. It’s just a somewhat risky venture, because all users you sell software to also get all the source code. That means anyone can buy your software, request the source, and then immediately start competing with you by offering it themselves for free or cheaper or whatever. So it’s allowed, but rarely works for very long unless you have a lot of good will in the community.