[jck]

The GPL doesn't force you to give anything away if you've just modified the code for personal use. You only need to provide source code if you're distributing your modified software.

You're free to avoid using GPL code if you disagree with the philosophy but it is undeniable that GPL greatly improves software (for users, not corporations) like linux and ffmepg.

[naikrovek]

> The GPL doesn't force you to give anything away if you've just modified the code for personal use. You only need to provide source code if you're distributing your modified software.

I'm not free to keep my changes, though, and if I don't have those rights, it is because I've given them away at the behest of the GPL. My changes are GPL even if I never distribute them. I'm prevented from licensing that code how I choose. GPL takes my effort and forces me to either never do anything with it or to give it away to everyone.

I will never work on code that is licensed under any GPL variant. I will not donate my time to expand the functionality of that code or to fix any problem for software which supports a license that removes freedoms from the people who maintain it.

The GPL is viral and parasitic and I will not contribute to that.

Maybe I would have freely given my code away if it was MIT licensed. Maybe I would keep it for myself. Maybe I would turn it into a commercial product.

My point is that THE CHOICE IS MINE if I work on code that is MIT licensed.

The choice is what matters to me, and the GPL forces me to give up that choice. I can't agree to that.

[webmobdev]

> I'm not free to keep my changes ... I'm prevented from licensing that code how I choose.

You seem to believe that your rights trumps everyone else's. You are ignoring that it is not just your code.

If somebody has released the source code under the GPL license, they are the original copyright holder(s) giving you permission to reuse the code under certain conditions (as outlined in the GPL license). They choose the GPL license because they believe GPL protects their rights, and the open source philosophy best, as the GPL license ensures that the code they created will always be open source when changed and distributed by other coders.

Instead of complaining about other people's choice of license (GPL or MIT), think instead of how you would like your open source code to be used by others and what license you would choose to achieve those goals. You are free to do whatever you want with your original code and thus can license it however you want. But once you start reusing other people's code, their rights and beliefs also matter. If you don't subscribe to their belief, then obviously you have no choice but to not use their code.

[naikrovek]

> once you start reusing other people's code, their rights and beliefs also matter. If you don't subscribe to their belief, then obviously you have no choice but to not use their code.

The only way I know for sure about their rights and beliefs is via the requirements in the license. If they want me to comply with further ideals, codify those in the license. I am not obligated to believe that the code is in use by aliens from planet Xobnar, as an extreme example.

If I comply with the license, the requirements are met, and I am free to use the code.

[webmobdev]

> The only way I know for sure about their rights and beliefs is via the requirements in the license.

Yes, and so you have to comply with the license or not use their code. If you distribute some code with some conditions for its reuse described in a license, would you like it if I called your conditions / license "stupid", ignore it and still use your code as I see fit (which would be illegal)? Obviously no.