[jcbrand]

> 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used.

This is false. You are free to use and improve it, even if you don't want to give your improvements back.

But then you are just not allowed to distribute the software with your changes as closed source.

> It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views.

That is a crap analogy.

The people who don't want to open source their improvements to GPL'd code aren't charities, they are businesses who want to make money of other people's work. The GPL provides a kind of compensation to these people for their work. Which is the guarantee that all (distributed) improvements will be GPL'd as well.

That's one of the main reasons why I like the GPL. I know I will in some form be compensated for my labour (as opposed to BSD), in the sense that any improvements to it will come back to me.

[smsm42]

You seem to be confusing political stance with GPL legal language. GPL legal language, due to the way copyright works, may not allow the author to control usage - even though Affero GPL comes close. But mere fact that the ASP scenario is called a "loophole" and mere fact that Affero GPL exists suggests that the use of improved software without distribution of the improvements is considered something that needs to be discouraged.

You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that if somebody gives away his work for charitable reasons without any strings attached, and somebody else demands that whoever uses that work behaves in certain way that is politically approved by the giver - the latter has little base for claims of moral high-ground over the former. It is an empirical fact that restrictive licenses like GPL lead to more friction in integrating various software projects, often making it impossible to use existing code and requiring to reimplement existing functionality from scratch. Again, this is fine if the goal is certain political action and not just improving the world of software available.

You of course are entitled for compensation for your work, and entitled to choose in which form it comes. However I do not see a base for claiming that your requirement of compensation somehow morally superior to both people that prefer monetary compensation and people that do not require any compensation at all and allow their work to be used freely by anybody.