Critical distinction to whom? The users? The developers? The judge and jury?

If you get pulled over for speeding, you can't argue away the ticket by saying "yes officer, but speeding is easy to fix relative to hitting someone". If you continue to violate the law despite being notified of your exact violation, then you're probably due in for some punishment. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.

> Lol. HN is so ridiculous sometimes.

I hope you won't hold this against me, but I would suggest some humility here.

Let's discuss and disagree with respect, shall we?

> but much harder to give away the source code

On the contrary, it’s actually quite easy. They can simply upload the repository on github’s or simply tar snapshots of the source for their releases and host it themselves.

No, the issue is not that it’s hard. It’s that they don’t want to comply with copyright law. That’s an issue of criminality, not difficulty.

It's not harder to 'give away' the source code. It's part of the license(s) of the code you are linking to create your binary. It's not hard at all, actually. On the contrary, it's very easy.

> comply with attribution somewhere

Somewhere where the user can find it. That may require UI work.

> much harder to give away the source code

tar cf gpl-mandated-source.tar.gz ~/Projects/voice.ai; drag file into dropbox and email link.

That's the nice thing about this particular violation, you don't need to go over the source code at all! You just need to send over the source files that you shipped!