GPL prevents this from happening by requiring your competitor to open the code under the same license.
For example, Oracle tried to outcompete RedHat by cloning the RedHat Linux into Oracle Unbreakable Linux.
For example, Oracle tried to outcompete RedHat by cloning the RedHat Linux into Oracle Unbreakable Linux.
The Audacity drama is solved by GPL, you can compile your own version without telemetry. Forks will pop up and the Audacity developers will backtrack and remove the offending parts of the code.
As for Audacity - the exact same thing would have happened with any other Open Source license; GPL doesn't make it any easier.
Assuming that Audacity does not have a CLA the GPL license will prevent muse from forking Audacity into a closed source project and continuing their development there instead. Instead they are required to keep any modifications open source, allowing users to remove aspects like the telemetry.
As for Audacity: its owners couldn't do that without closing their fork, which would mean splitting off with the developer community and becoming irrelevant.
No, it's about keeping those improvements open source.
>As for Audacity - the exact same thing would have happened with any other Open Source license; GPL doesn't make it any easier.
Yes, it does make it a lot easier since the Muse Group (assuming they don't own all copyright of Audacity, if they do the license doesn't indeed really matter) has to release all improvements as GPL and the fork can simply cherry-pick them. With a MIT/BSD style license they could just make it proprietary and then we would be stuck having to choose between an outdated Audacity and a non-free Audacity.
I cannot understand your question.
> And why didn't it prevent the Audacity drama?
It does. See https://github.com/temporary-audacity/audacity