[santacluster]

I would say that is mostly because, thanks to RMS and the GPL, we now live mostly in an ecosystem where the threat of a world dominated by closed, proprietary software has been pushed to the background.

People don't feel a strong need to "weaponize" their licenses against a dormant enemy. Hell, there's a whole generation of hackers for whom the threat is merely theoretical, a bit of historical hacker folklore. For them, copyleft clauses are merely a nuisance that serves no immediate practical purpose.

However, should one or more major players be stupid enough start abusing this and stop playing nice with the open source community, my guess is you'll suddenly see an upsurge of GPL licensed projects.

MIT and BSD licensed projects are cool as long as everyone plays nice, and most companies, even Microsoft, have learned to play nice. That may not always remain the case.

[jacquesm]

> I would say that is mostly because, thanks to RMS and the GPL, we now live mostly in an ecosystem where the threat of a world dominated by closed, proprietary software has been pushed to the background.

I think that threat is alive and well, especially in mobile and sooner or later everything will be mobile except for server side.

Some battles were won but that war may still very well be lost.

[TallGuyShort]

The way I see it is that the GPL is inconvenient as long as not everyone is using it. I'd love to live in a world where everything was GPL, but as long as something is not GPL, it's very difficult to work with anything other than BSD / MIT / Apache-style licenses. I work in an almost entirely open-source ecosystem, and find that most customers want free-as-in-freedom software, but (especially in some industries) they're terrified of the GPL because they don't want to restrict their options in the future if they need to use software that isn't "free" but is required for them to be successful.

[spopejoy]

but (especially in some industries) they're terrified of the GPL because they don't want to restrict their options in the future if they need to use software that isn't "free" but is required for them to be successful.

I would love to hear a succinct response to this concern, which I've encountered numerous times when I've sought to use a GPL library or solution and the boss/manager goes pale at the thought of GPL. What is so terrible about it?

- Are there libraries/solutions you cannot use simply b/c you have a GPL piece in your toolbox?

- "derivative works" as I understand this is only if you modify the source code itself. Does stuff built on-top-of or next-to the GPL'd code have to be GPL too?

[forrestthewoods]

Because copyleft is intentionally viral. Controlling that virality is hard. It's easy for your non-GPL code to become infected. The license is very long and there is not consensus on how it applies. It's largely untested in courts. Stallman believes that even dynamically linking GPL code constitutes a derived work.

[belorn]

> Does stuff built on-top-of or next-to the GPL'd code have to be GPL too?

"derivative works" is often the simple question on what a non-technical judge would deem as a single product. If you have to explain and label "parts", counting it as a derivative works is the safer bet.