people use and take code from others, modify it a bit and then they wonder why they are not allowed to keep there result closed while most of it based on work of others?
no really a shame...
what you take must stay open. your contributions may be closed. that's basically what gpl states.
if you cry about what linux devs suffer then compare it to i.e. windows world:
you can't take anything without paying, especially not if you want to make money with your contributions.
no really, hard time linux devs have :rolleyes:
"Please note that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 by itself."
"Please note that LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 by itself."
"Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2."
"Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2"
and lots more incompatible licenses listed there.
Linux is GPLv2 (and not "any later version" like other GPL software). This restricts which licenses are compatible. While there are some licenses that would comply with the GPLv2 terms, the issue at hand here is RTS keeping their modifications private. That clearly violates the terms of GPLv2.
I was replying to someone saying GPL is viral, as in you have to release your changes as GPL to comply, and pointed them there are plenty of other choices. And yes, FSF does not have a list with the licences compatible with GPLv2 only, you need to filter the generic list for the v2 only exceptions.
The more I think about it, the more it looks like MS will go the way of IBM. You know, the former arch-enemy of all that's good in computing...
Apple explicitly forbids GPL'ed apps, while there is absolutely no legal reason for them to do so. They can legally release GPL'ed apps with DRM applied in their app store, as long as the apps come with an option to download their source code and installation instructions.
(If you don't believe me, you can go read the GPL yourself!)