[wizzwizz4]

They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3. If most code is GPLv3, we're all better off – but while people are still prepared to work around GPL-rejecting companies, those companies can still reject the GPL.

It's the tragedy of the Commons.

[ben_bai]

The GPL license usage is falling, and even Linux is GPLv2 and rejects GPLv3. Some Linux code is dual licenses GPLv2 and MIT.

ApacheV2, MPL, MIT, ISC and BSD licenses are gaining in popularity.

[coldtea]

>They'll stop doing that if most code is GPLv3

No, they'll just find a MIT/BSD or probably proprietary alternative.

[AlchemistCamp]

From a legal perspective, what is the advantage in a proprietary alternative?

[coldtea]

E.g. they don't get to sue you for using it and not opening your own software that links to it, since you can buy a license allowing you to do just that.

That's also why some GPL software is dual licensed. GPL for the masses, and a proprietary license allowing you to do whatever without needing to follow the GPL if you can afford it.

[AlchemistCamp]

Ah! You mean a special kind of proprietary license for them. That makes sense.

I thought you meant they would just use copyrighted code that wasn't under a GPL (which would be just as illegal and probably more dangerous in terms of enforcement).