| To preface the rest of my response. One of my points why the GPL isn't magic is that developers will just "steal" code if is easier and most companies don't bother checking whether the code is violating licenses when supplying to a third party. > Yes, you're reading me right, but I skipped over the question of software which is never released publicly - mmt is correct that the GPL does not require public release of works, instead it prevents you from releasing the binaries while withholding the source. The fact it doesn't prevent you from doing that. It only really prevents large companies that people are watching. Violations happen all the time. They just happen on smaller GPL projects. > 'Secret' purely internal use of modified GPL software is not a violation - if the modified software is never distributed publicly, there's no issue. The impression I get is that GPL advocates like yourself seem to think that the unwashed developers that work on proprietary code don't understand the GPL and have to be constantly told how a software license works. You aren't an enlightened individual because you understand a software license. I understand the license and the arguments about it just fine. There is an issue with stuff not going back to upstream. If a defect fix only happens in downstream that is generic enough that it should benefit everyone then only downstream benefits, this things don't get contributed back and there is no improvement of upstream. > Imperfect enforcement is a valid point, but the terms of the GPL are effective at least some of the time. Major technology companies do not want copyright scandals, even if plenty of fly-by-night companies are willing to risk it. The flyby night companies as you put it are the majority, not the minority. If it isn't a big project most companies won't get found out. Again GPL doesn't magically make people contribute back, which was my original disagreement with your comment. |
That's my understanding, as well, but that was never asserted, only "play nice", (re-)"release under the GPL", and "gets to live as long as people value it" as you were able to quote upthread.
This seems like contributing forward, not back, or downstream, not upstream.
The eventual effect, for publically-released software, usually ends up being an upstream contribution, but that's not automatic.
I'm not an advocating any particular license, but it does seem like you're responding to a strawman that nobody in this subthread (GPL advocate or not) has argued.