Now you can't make money period! All the nice frameworks you know are GPL. You can't link them because then you must give away your work for free with no cost to potential competitors all because RMS doesn't believe in the right for you to make money other than support?! How is that fair?
I believe that's a misunderstanding of the GPL. You must only provide code to someone that gets your software -- you could sell the software and only give the code to those that buy it, for example, and meet the requirements.
But let's say that's true. If they can package and sell and support it, great for them. I would bet that unless they are deeply involved in the software, they wouldn't be able to support it -- meaning their customers will ultimately call me to fix it. So I get money and exposure.
The other possibility is that the company does know my software very well and at a deep level, and can support it and modify it. Then the GPL requires their updates be released as well, and so I would get access to their changes to integrate into my product. In this case, its a win-win.
Maybe not everyone is a fan of this idea, but I do not think it is as dire as you claim (and I have in fact started a business using this concept for the software aspect of the work; it is not very old yet, so I will admit the jury is out on it so far, but this isn't me just talking in theory but rather something I think makes sense for my situation).
Want some investors to fund your company? They will see GPL and freak. Why? They can't see the asset as that technically counts as a distribution. Your company value goes down next to nothing and so does your income in disproportionate to the risk going up.
I'm not really convinced "investors" are the smartest people in the world, at least in general. I'm not sure I buy the argument. There are plenty of community-minded people that contribute to things. Why can't the business be a little more non-profit? (Or at least a B-corporation, where you prioritize helping the community even though you are for-profit). Sure, maybe not everyone is keen on it, but I bet you can find a few investors. Or, save up for yourself or take a loan out and skip the businessmen that will insist you run your company into the ground for their profit entirely. That's my approach, though I also agree that this depends largely on what type of business it is (some fields require much more start up money than others).
What if you pay taxes as a business and yet can't use that tax payer funded code? That is what BSD is about since everyone who pays gets it back.
My original post was in regards to for-profit private business use of open source code. Government-backed free-to-the-public software is a different beast, and in that case, it may actually be best for a more BSD-type license to allow larger usages. But I am still not entirely-convinced; if the public paid for it, and you use it, why should you be able to keep ALL of the profit? In this case, every citizen has invested in it, and should get something for it. Maybe simply paying a tax to fund further development of any software would be better than requiring every change to be open? What would be your idea?
I think it is important to be clear here (a) who contributed the code and (b) who the audience is. If it is tax-payer funded open source, businesses that use it owe something to the initial investment of the citizens, and that can be in the form of GPL open sourced changes, or maybe just paying an extra tax to refund the citizens. If it was a donation to public domain by private citizens, then BSD/GPL makes sense if the private citizens are fine with what that means.
In essence when you want a paycheck for your employer even as an employee that is all closed source. Closed source = income. Property rights is what gives rise to business and no business can exist without them.
I think Red Hat has shown closed source is not the only path to income. Considering they support Fedora and now CentOS, I think they made the strategic decision that being open helps their bottom line. It very well might depend on the type of business whether being open makes sense, but I do not think business requires being completely closed. Property rights are important, but I think that's a different question from whether to be open or not, and in what manner. You still own the copyright to the software, for example, with GPL, so its not like property rights are being totally thrown at the window.