Besides, do you have any examples? I'm not seeing this in practice. There are several examples of companies contributing source code back to permissive software projects and I can't think of any examples where permissive software was modified and leveraged with competitive features. And I think it's a lot harder to maintain out-of-tree forks of non-trivial open source software ... tools or not. Even something like the FreeBSD kernel is extremely volatile.
... and all unrelated code having nothing to do with the GPL'd work on account of linking.Quote:
It's bad for developer who wants to develop proprietary code using GPL licenced code, it's a great licence for developers who want to benefit from any enhancements made to their code.
GPL is not for proprietary code as it exists entirely to keep the source code in all it's derivative forms open, as such it's an anti-thesis to proprietary code.
No you don't have to, you choose to. Just like the creator of that GPL licenced code chose to licence it as GPL, because he/she likely wanted any modifications made to the code made available to them.
And it hurts open source software too.
I'm sorry you feel that way. In my opinion, free open source software should not force its ideology on other works. This isn't kindergarten ... you don't have to share your modifications. Well, I choose those permissive terms anyway.Quote:
And how you can complain about the existance of open source code available under a licence you don't prefer as tragic, while defending proprietary code (which isn't available as open source at all) just reeks of bullshit.
But GPL does more than just keep derivatives open source. It extends its terms into even unrelated source simply through linking. As if using something so fundamental as SVD (GSL) or basic data structures (glib) really warrants re-licensing an entire project as GPL on account of linking. This is likely worse than most proprietary licenses. For example, if I link with MS SDK, there are no such ludicrous terms. That's preposterous.Quote:
The discussion here is about the 'double morale' exposed in many BSD zealots who wants to frame proprietary as something good (keeping it closed is their right!!) while trying to frame GPL as something bad (as if it was somehow not a right to require derivates to remain open source!?!?).
Nobody is complaining about LGPL (well I'm not), for example, because it doesn't have such heavy-handed terms.
Of course, I can think of situations where I might use GPL. Let's say I wanted to sell some software. I could make a GPL version so that it gains widespread use and exposure in the community and then sell a proprietary-licensed version of it to interested companies that want accountability and support.