Restrictive GPL licensing naturally turns into these non-commercial licenses. Saying some restrictions are good because you agree with the intent but other restrictions are bad because you don't agree with the intent doesn't change that it's heavily restricting usage either way.
Conversation
You are only "restricted" from making the software proprietary (i.e., not give others the permissions you were given).
Quote Tweet
Replying to @wewegomb and @alyssarzg
The GPL is completely business friendly, so long as business objectives are compatible with Free Software objectives. The GPL has created virtually impossible-to-measure business value by unencumbering businesses, as software users, from the restrictions of proprietary licensing.
2
1
It also restricts mixing it with lots of other open source software, prevents selling devices with an immutable root of trust even as an optional variant of a product, etc. It has a ton of usage restrictions. The users of source code are developers and that's who it restricts.
2
1
I think there are many ways to meet various design requirements of consumer electronics devices while still respecting the rights that I think the other of the device should be given.
2
5
Daniel hits on a key aspect that always bothered me: who the real "users" are. The GPL doesn't affect me as an end user, but it does affect me significantly as a developer, especially if my intent is to potentially create proprietary software products.
4
How does the GPL stop you from creating proprietary software products? You can license proprietary equivalents of GPL software for any components you need. If you can't afford to do that then you have a business problem not a license problem.
3
2
You misunderstood me - while technically possible, the ability to incorporate GPL software into proprietary software products is severely restricted. And yes, having to use out-of-process extensions to avoid the GPL propagation to proprietary code is limiting.
1
Maybe you misunderstand me. You have choices. You can choose to build products out of GPL software and comply with it's licenses or choose to build products out of proprietary software and comply with it's licenses.
4
GPL restricts usage and is a close cousin of those non-commercial licenses. Permissive licenses do exist.
Complying with licenses is itself a choice. GPL violation is the software equivalent of pirating a movie. Many people choose not to respect software licenses anyway.
2
1
2
Part of what you have to take into account when choosing licensing is that the rules you set are easily violated. You depend on the state enforcing your copyright monopoly by going after people through the legal system. I've had enough of the legal system and copyright already.
1
1
I'm not going to take an approach or choose a license based on that model. I don't think copyright should exist at all and think the negatives far outweigh the positives especially after seeing first hand how it hinders my work but yet many bad actors just entirely ignore it.
GPL advocates are inherently copyright advocates. The premise that copyleft undermines or subverts copyright is a joke. It's just copyright in the usual form, restricting what people can do and needing to be enforced through the legal system. Only helps people with money/power.
2
If people actually took the time to read the logic behind copyleft, they would understand that it is entirely based on copyright law, and could not exist without it. It's basically "all rights reversed" where the restrictive terms are meant to ensure the software remains "free"
1