GPL is source available in the first place because it heavily restricts use and clearly doesn't meet their own requirements for 'Free Software'. The surrounding context doesn't determine which kind of license it is. Free Software movement is just a bunch of cognitive dissonance.
Conversation
It doesn't restrict use in any way. It just comes with obligations upon some triggering conditions (e.g, distribution, creating derivative works).
But you're free to use the software any way you wish (as an end-user). You just need to give others the same freedom you were given.
1
1
It does heavily restrict usage as an end user. The users of source code are developers, and it heavily restricts what they can do with it including mixing it with actual free software without the same usage restrictions. GPL is non-free software, based on their own definition.
1
5
Free Software movement sees the restrictions in the GPL as being justified by being for the greater good. The advocates of non-commercial licenses see things the same way with their restrictive licenses. There will be other restrictive license movements based on other values.
1
4
Some people don't want their software being used as part of waging war, policing, etc. Going to be lots of license restrictions and attempts to push them. GPL created the conditions for people to see this as something that makes sense. Most projects moving to these were GPL.
1
3
Non-commercial licenses, etc. are the evolution of what people wanted from GPL and why they were using it. Vast majority of developers using it were doing it in a misguided attempt to get sustainability and contributions back to the project. Includes biggest adopters like Linux.
1
1
People like Linus never bought into the Free Software movement. The vast majority of large projects using GPL never cared. Many of those are now going to move on to restrictive licenses. It's not just companies. A lot of other smaller projects are starting to move too.
1
1
No, the vast majority of GPL projects are not changing their licenses, and many mindfully made their choice because the authors have an ethical position on protecting Software Freedom.
2
2
Vast majority of people already moved on to just using MIT, BSD, Apache 2, etc. and a lot of the major projects still using GPL are now moving to these non-commercial licenses if they're in a position to do it. It's why they used it in the first place: restricting usage.
2
3
I don't think the vast majority of people who used GPL did it because they bought into the FSF take on ethics around software licensing. They used it because it was pushed as what they should use, was seen as a standard and wanted to force contributions back which it doesn't.
1
2
The niche of software that used it because they actually buy into the ideology and movement is now primarily a bunch of moribund, poorly maintained software with better alternatives available. A lot of it is only GPL out of spite / dual licensing approach (LibreOffice, Qt, etc.).
Qt has a checkered history in software licensing due to their commercial interests.
The LibreOffice community made a mindful choice in their software license. It was not done out of "spite".