[pabs3]

The goal of the GPL is user freedom (not developer freedom), so it is intentional that it is hostile to situations where proprietary software is involved. There is the LGPL for allowing those situations though.

The GPL doesn't care about control schemes though, so your nuclear reactor example seems strange.

The GNU family of licenses don't care about contributions, only about user software freedom. In the case of hosting companies, the AGPL was created to preserve user freedom for network oriented software, it isn't perfect but is reasonably good.

It is incorrect to say these companies are switching to different licensing schemes because of lack of contributions from hosting companies, the correct reason is that the hosting companies make a lot of money and the software companies want that money for themselves.

[simne]

> The goal of the GPL is user freedom (not developer freedom)

I don't think GPL way is best to achieve this goal.

I see much wider goal of modern engineering, to REuse as much work as possible, because even with modern advances with AI, we still have very limited number of engineers, so users could not got quality products and services when reuse is limited by license, so GPL effectively limiting users freedom.

Must admit, other licenses also have issues, but for user freedom I think best MIT/BSD licenses and most similar to them (Apache, etc).

[pabs3]

Any other approach means whoever receives the code has the opportunity to reduce end user freedom, in the world of modern capitalism, they almost certainly will.

[simne]

“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried", I believe, you know who said (or could google).

So, if you will invent something really better, I will respect.