The problem is that nobody actually knows what constitutes a derivative work. Hence you have the LGPL for libraries so that you don't have to worry about linking them.
The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money. If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging down your door with lawyers crying about violations. That's not what freedom is about.
If you want your code to have the widest use possible go for BSD/MIT licenses. If you want to promote RMS' agenda go for the GPL.
You're not responding to the substance of my post. I said I wasn't commenting on whether or not the GPL actually promotes freedom. It just doesn't take it away. You and I are in total agreement here. If you want your code to have the widest possible distribution, use BSD/MIT licenses (I have done this). You have the freedom to do this and the existence of the GPL does not take your freedom away from you. You also have the freedom to decide not to use GPLed code.
People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses.
I can't think of how it takes away freedom. But it is less free than other open-source licenses, yet the FSF bills it as the paragon of freedom. I think that's the gist of why there are such feelings towards it.
I don't hate the GPL. I think it has its place. Less so in modern times than the early 80s, but it does have a place.
> People have a sense of entitlement WRT open source code, I think. As if it's "open source," it should be under whatever terms they want not those of the original author. I think that's why so many people bitch about copyleft licenses.
That certainly isn't why I "bitch," as you say, as I realize that the author can do whatever he wishes. I do, however, make it a point to listen to my users; if my users have a philosophical disagreement over my choice of license, I take that into account in decisions on what to license in the future.
That's the approach to software that I wish more developers would take: I have listened to your feedback, and I will take it into consideration. Your attitude, which is what I disagree so very strongly with, is that you didn't have to open-source the software at all, your users are lucky that you did, and you'll be damned if you'll consider feedback on your choice of licensing. It's "take it or leave it," which to the occasional user that wants to embed your code in something else, sucks a lot.
There's been other comments in this thread to the effect of that "isn't [your] problem". If you're not interested in helping consumers of your software use it, why did you release it at all? I realize (believe me) that there is a line that must be drawn when it comes to listening to your users, but responding with "tough, rewrite it" is really a bummer to hear.
Realistically, I think you're working against yourself with that take on your users.
I'm really confused here. If you want to help your users embed your code in their projects, license it MIT and don't use GPLed code. How hard is that? I think you're misinterpreting my attitude.
I apologize if my comments seeemed to imply that I had a "it's not my problem" attitude. This debate has gotten rancorous enough as it is. We probably agree on more than we know here...
I do not think the GPL restrictions are aimed at users, but at other developers who may be competitors. Some developers might be cautious about opening their source using BSD-style licenses because their competitors may then use the free code in their closed-source product. So they use the GPL reasoning "If my competitors use my code in their product, I want to be able to use their code in my product."
"The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money."
Any particular examples?
"If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging down your door with lawyers crying about violations. That's not what freedom is about."
When has this ever happened?
The fact is the AGPLv3 is the most business-friendly Free Software/open source license available:
The Affero clause prevents your competitors from taking
your software and running an SaaS operation. BSD/MIT doesn't.
GPL prevents your competitors from outright stealing your work. BSD/MIT doesn't.
Version 3 of the GPL prevents your competitors from using your software on their hardware while preventing you from doing the same thing. BSD/MIT doesn't.
Don't forget that there's nothing stopping you from dual-licensing. Dual-licensing with the GPL is a proven business model. Dual-licensing with BSD/MIT doesn't make sense.
"GPL prevents your competitors from outright stealing your work. BSD/MIT doesn't."
"Any particular examples?"
Me. I know I can't be the only one.
Your competitors could just download the source code, figure out what you wrote, and re-work it into their app. As long as it was different enough, there's not much you could do.
I'm not sure how this would really help you.
"he Affero clause prevents your competitors from taking your software and running an SaaS operation."
I thought open source was about freedom. It seems like it's an attempt to prevent people from making a profit and forcing a political movement. Freedom shouldn't have limits. If you are creating your work to force me to adhere to your ideals, it's not really freedom.
"GPL prevents your competitors from outright stealing your work. BSD/MIT doesn't."
Can code or ideas really be stolen? After all, the original is still there.
"Your competitors could just download the source code, figure out what you wrote, and re-work it into their app. As long as it was different enough, there's not much you could do.
I'm not sure how this would really help you."
It prevents your competitors from forking a proprietary copy and building on top of it. Looking at the code and re-writing it is a substantial investment.
The result is that nobody wants to risk tainting their work with GPL code if they're trying to make money. If it's GPL many people won't even look at it because who knows if someone who contributed a 2 line patch 10 years ago is going to come banging down your door with lawyers crying about violations. That's not what freedom is about.
If you want your code to have the widest use possible go for BSD/MIT licenses. If you want to promote RMS' agenda go for the GPL.