Much Ado about GPL

[MyndFyre]

[edit]I also don't necessarily support GPL[/edit].

I don't blame you about the GPL, but that's a whole other subject

I thought I'd make another subject. 

I don't support the GPL because it *forces* other people to release their software as free if it's based on your work.  They (the FSF) call it "free" software, but it takes away one fundamental freedom: the ability to keep your own work to yourself. 

Some ideas clearly should not be monopolized; for instance, Microsoft shouldn't hold a patent on right-clicking.  That should, if anything, go to the people who first invented a two-button mouse.

However, to license your work to only be used if work that is based on or incorporates it is licensed identically is the ultimate act egoism, much more so than just keeping your work to yourself.  That's why MBNCSUtil and some other projects of mine are open-source under the modified BSD license.

[Blaze]

Good points. 

[iago]

I believe that the goal of GPL is that everything is GPL'ed.  If everything was GPL'ed, then there wouldn't be a problem.  Using their software IS free, but you're forced to share what you've done.  Overall, the more people who work under GPL, the better GPL gets.  That's not true with most other licenses. 

As it is, a divide has been created.  Kinda like a Venn Diagram, except that the circles don't overlap.  On one side is Commercial, which doesn't play with others.  On the other is GPL, which doesn't play with others. 

I personally go with the public-domain license for most of what I do.  My principle is, I don't care if others use it.  If they want to give me credit, that's nice, but I'm not going to force them to.

On the other hand, I've released some software under a BSD license, which is personally my favorite license.