[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.