If you don't like it, write your own code under your license of choice.
I like the goal of the GPL, just not the means. People should write open source software out of their own free fill (as I do), and not because they are forced to by a license.
You may argue that without the requirements the GPL places on people, there would hardly be any open source software. This is the assumption that most people are "bad" and would not share there code, but the GPL gives them no choice. I have more faith in the world and think that there are enough good-willing developers that would contribute code back anyway.
Also did you not read my original post - why are you telling me to use a different license - when it was clear from my original post that I already do (BSD/MIT variants)?
I don't win, as someone who writes software licensed under BSD/MIT.
I have to compromise.
Either license my code as GPL, which restricts who can use my code (I want my code to be used as widely as possible - I don't care if MS uses in their software - I give it away with the purpose of improving the quality of software people use - i.e. if Joe Windows User benefits from MS including my BSD licensed software or Bob Linux User benefits from GPL projects including my BSD licensed software - both make me happy).
Or, I re-implement the software as BSD licensed. Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
I never implied the developer has an obligation to let me use his code. Neither does the closed source developer.
My point is by placing this restrictions, the GPL developer prevents not only closed source software using his code - but also certain class of open source software (BSD/MIT-style licensed).
This is obvious - but my in stating it, I was disputing the point of the grandparent who was implying that GPL is good for every open source developer - which is not the case for developers writing BSD-licensed software, as the GPL code cannot be used in their projects.
Did you miss the word either in the statement you emphasized?
What I said was fact. Given the premise that I want the above functionality in my app, I either have license my app as GPL or re-implement the functionality as MIT/BSD. This is obvious from the restrictions the GPL places on the software. I don't see the point of dispute in this statement.
Actually I never said I wish to restrict the freedom of others.
I follow the "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
Your freedom to write GPL'd code should not be restricted. My point was the license is not the golden chalice for any open source developer (which was the GP's point).
If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
Unless you want to license your open source code as BSD/MIT...
Suppose you're writing an open source app (let's say 20k LOC) and wish to license it under MIT. Now, suppose you need a specific functionality that's already been implemented by another open source project under GPL (let's say the functionality is 1K LOC).
Now, you can either use that functionality, but would be forced to relicense your project as GPL (thereby giving up your freedom of being able to choose how you want to license the code you have written), or re-implement the same functionality yourself and license it as MIT (thereby duplicating effort).
As an open source software developer wishing to license my code liberally, I am forced to either give up my freedom of choosing the license for my code or re-implement functionality (thereby taking away my time from improving other parts of my open source app).
So, the GPL license IS a bullshit license even if you are writing open source software (in certain circumstances).
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen