GPL is almost always a bad choice for open source projects. I could write for days on the subject - but I'll try to be brief.
(Note: I am not a lawyer and not speaking on behalf of the FSF, just on my own capacity.)
This was during the years Linux was the rebel, Microsoft was the suits, and you could plop the GPL on anything and people would embrace it as the worlds. Code was open - but untouchable by the corporations.
To my surprise, after joining them rank and file of the private sector people chided me for my enthusiasm in the GPL.
I realize in retrospect the youthful folly of it. It turns out the "poison pill" that is the derivative work clause of the license affects everybody. That is, hardware vendors, game makers, medium sized companies, small companies, individuals, even more permissively licensed open source projects can't touch GPL.
What took me years to realize is when corporate brought us into a meeting with the lawyers, LGPL and GPL w/ exceptions are in the same boat! These exceptions are weak compared to the 9 pages of restrictions biased toward the virility of it.
What made me really popular in open source, made me an outcast at work. It got me, fresh out of MIT, fired, and for a time on welfare (only for the period of 2 weeks).
GPL uses the term "Free" in a twisted, marxist way. It's restrictive and, while done in good faith, completely burns bridges and appeal to people who'd otherwise be happy contributing upstream to some projects.
Reminder, I am not a lawyer and was only a volunteer at FSF. I still accept GPL for some projects, but my opinion has since changed since entering the workforce.
I would've expected someone who volunteered at FSF understood this basic fact (or trade-off, if you like) long ago. After reading your story, I'm not sure what actually motivated you to volunteer there in the first place. I somehow can't believe it's because you really shared their philosophy.
To me, it seems you are the one who's twisting things motivated by a personal anecdote.
As do the BSD and especially(?) the Apache Software License.
What possibly can be said in favour of GPL is that it:
* make the code more resistant to forks, esp. less free
* opens an option for the original author of code to do dual-licensing
* provides an opportunity for the authors to prevent certain uses of the code
Case in point : there is nothing in either the ASL, BSD or MIT that allows you to go back and make already licensed code less free. The original authors can choose to license their new or existing code under another license as well, as can coders using GPL.
Personally I would be happy if everyone could stop pretending that GPL is more free or respects users more, - as I have tried to show above it does not.
There might still be ideological and even practical reasons to use GPL, but it is NOT more free, possibly less.
I am a Marxist. Go on?
(I have my own critique of the GPL - by its nature, it demands I conform to a liberal conception of freedom. I do not consider it a freedom to have corporate entities exploit my software for profit without compensating me.)
How, pray tell, is it Marxist?
> How, pray tell, is it Marxist?
It's a meme from #/g/technology on irc.rizon.net.
You appear to be using the term "Marxist" as a snarl term.
This is strong evidence you're trolling.
Please leave. We don't especially want trolls here.
But the use of the term was fair.
There is a political and ideological aspect of the fierce-copyleft outlook that cross-fertilizes with Marx-ish thinking. Eben Moglen is often eloquent on these themes. It's not necessarily an insult to observe this.
And in this kind of casual, vernacular use – uncapitalized, even! – people also understand 'marxist' to describe language that has been shifted, by certain stylized theories of production and exploitation, from its plainer meaning in other contexts. That's a reasonably expressive way to describe the very particular and ideologically-qualified definition of "Free" that the FSF prefers.
And judging from the responses in this thread, it appears that he is successful.
Or do you enjoy feeding trolls?
BSD - if you want your software to be used as much as possible, even if the user doesn't return the favor.
GPL - if you want corporations who benefit from your software to give something back. (also useful for dual licensing, so you can make money).
https://www.fsf.org/appeal/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
EDIT: I found what I was looking for [2].
[1]: https://github.com/hgesser/ulix
[2]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hgesser/ulix/master/ulix-b...
At any rate the PDF version looks (and more importantly reads) great.
