Again, it's quite difficult to get access to proprietary source code, so that is a false equivalence. I'm not confusing the benefits for penalties... I'm observing the emergent behavior that the GPL license produces by its viral and infectious rules. The strength of the legal threat has not been tested in court, to my knowledge, but why risk a lawsuit? And there is still the patent issue.
In terms of marketing, GPL sets itself up to be the paragon of the open source spirit and the model that all open source licenses should follow, but it has a HUGE gotcha based on its political persuasion. It proclaims freedom, but it is most decidedly not completely free, and requires parsing of sophisticated legalese to understand the nuances. Good luck if you are a beginner, non-native speaker, or have otherwise spent substantial brainpower trying to understand the do's and don'ts. It will bite you.
You may absolutely love GPL and everything that it stands for. That's fine with me. But I don't, and I advise everyone that I know of the dangers and repercussions of using GPL dependencies. You can say that those are features and virtues, and I can say that they are dangers and liabilities, but the bare facts are the same.
But, getting back to the reason for this post, when I want to compare software packages, the license is the first thing I look at, and if it's GPL, I bail on it immediately.
The GPL isn't viral its a simple bargain you can pick up or leave without also agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone's politics. There is no "danger" of any kind whether you can or cannot use GPL software is a trivial matter. If you are distributing proprietary software then you cannot. Foregoing software as a user because it is licensed under the GPL makes even less sense. The GPL simply doesn't restrict use in any fashion. It's like saying if I find out my a brands clothes was sewn by people who drink milk I bail man I'm lactose intolerant! It's a basic misunderstanding of how things work or a weird hang up.
In terms of marketing, GPL sets itself up to be the paragon of the open source spirit and the model that all open source licenses should follow, but it has a HUGE gotcha based on its political persuasion. It proclaims freedom, but it is most decidedly not completely free, and requires parsing of sophisticated legalese to understand the nuances. Good luck if you are a beginner, non-native speaker, or have otherwise spent substantial brainpower trying to understand the do's and don'ts. It will bite you.
You may absolutely love GPL and everything that it stands for. That's fine with me. But I don't, and I advise everyone that I know of the dangers and repercussions of using GPL dependencies. You can say that those are features and virtues, and I can say that they are dangers and liabilities, but the bare facts are the same.
But, getting back to the reason for this post, when I want to compare software packages, the license is the first thing I look at, and if it's GPL, I bail on it immediately.