I disagree, it doesn't force anybody to become GPL. Projects *choose* to become GPL when they want to use GPL'ed code.
I'm operating under the assumption that a hypothetical project would benefit from using the code. Of course they "choose" to become GPL when they use GPL code, but that doesn't affect the point I'm trying to make; it at least has the potential to prevent otherwise interested programmers from using and promoting open source code.
GPL is largely to protect programmers from corporations and other Big Evil Entities who are trying to benefit from work that somebody else did for free. I mean, why should somebody profit off my hard work when I get nothing (or nearly nothing)? BSD, MIT, etc are useful, but they don't stop others from profiting off somebody else's hard work.
Myndfyre -- that's getting alllllmost back onto your topic.
Also, for what it's worth, I've run into a few projects that I wanted to use that used GPL. I asked the authors specifically if I could use part of their code in mine under a different license, and they granted me permission. Most of the time, the programmers aren't trying to force others to use GPL, and they'll happily re-license bits of code for you without any trouble.
No, it doesn't. It only spreads when you intentionally make the choice to use it.
Yes, and, so? Sometimes the benefit of using nice code outweighs the retarded downfall of making your code GPL. It's kind of like eating delicious cancerous foods. You know that you'll probably get stomach cancer, but it's just too delicious to stop.
Your exact words were, "GPL spreads quickly when untreated" -- that's what that quote was referring to. Your "so?" implies that what I said was meaningless and, while that may be true, that doesn't change the fact that it's an intention spread.
