[jasonkostempski]

That's the difference between OSS and Free software. One focuses just on the benefits of working openly, the other is about making sure the user have full control of what their machine does. Open Source is a side effect of Free and it's a selling point to creators but the consumer is the priority.

Edit: To be clear I'm talking more about philosophy, not licensing. I do still struggle with the idea of GPL requiring changes to be made public.

[lolc]

GPLv2 does not require you to make your source changes public, it only demands that this remains an option for anybody who acquires a license from you.

So if I sell you software under the GPL, I have to provide you the source. You are then allowed, but not required, to publish the source.