Perhaps it's uncouth to comment after only listening to a minute or two, but I have to agree with what seems to be the premise of the episode that licences can and often are comically overcomplicated and, to put it politely, unjust and unenforceable.
For example, I recently had a conversation with a few colleagues about a feature in IntelliJ after noticing that it's absent from the Community Edition. I was then invited to apply for the Open Source licence given my contributions to our organisation's open source projects, but looking at the terms, our projects would have to be under particular open source licences, be updated regularly, and not be monetised in any way, nor pay our contributors in any way (which I assume includes bug bounties). And you could only use the software to develop non-monetised open source projects, and you must re-apply for this licence annually.
And the same goes with their Student Licence. You must re-apply for it annually, but it's even more restrictive: you may only use it for purely educational or strictly personal projects.
And so it's entirely possible that you'd have three versions of IntelliJ on your computer: 1) an educational version of Ultimate for your coursework, 2) an open source version of Ultimate for your open source projects, and 3) the Community Edition for any and all other projects. I can't be the only one who thinks this is absurd. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate companies who provide free licences to students and open source projects and so on, and that's a good thing. It's just that the incredibly restrictive terms of those licences are, as stated previously, unjust and unenforceable; And in my own case has dissuaded me from purchasing Ultimate because all this faffing around with licences is tedious and tiresome, so why go through all the bother when the Community Edition is right there with no additional strings attached?
For example, I recently had a conversation with a few colleagues about a feature in IntelliJ after noticing that it's absent from the Community Edition. I was then invited to apply for the Open Source licence given my contributions to our organisation's open source projects, but looking at the terms, our projects would have to be under particular open source licences, be updated regularly, and not be monetised in any way, nor pay our contributors in any way (which I assume includes bug bounties). And you could only use the software to develop non-monetised open source projects, and you must re-apply for this licence annually.
And the same goes with their Student Licence. You must re-apply for it annually, but it's even more restrictive: you may only use it for purely educational or strictly personal projects.
And so it's entirely possible that you'd have three versions of IntelliJ on your computer: 1) an educational version of Ultimate for your coursework, 2) an open source version of Ultimate for your open source projects, and 3) the Community Edition for any and all other projects. I can't be the only one who thinks this is absurd. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate companies who provide free licences to students and open source projects and so on, and that's a good thing. It's just that the incredibly restrictive terms of those licences are, as stated previously, unjust and unenforceable; And in my own case has dissuaded me from purchasing Ultimate because all this faffing around with licences is tedious and tiresome, so why go through all the bother when the Community Edition is right there with no additional strings attached?