GPL - God or demi-God!
From Hackers-IL
Shlomi Fish' writes:
Don't get me wrong I don't hate the GPL. I've contributed to GPL programs already and kept the modifications under the GPL. I think the fact that Linus Torvalds has made the Linux kernel GPLed was the best decision he made. I'm also not in the mood of re-writing everything under the sun that is GPLed under a BSD-like license. I have better things to do in my time.
However, I also think that using the Public Domain for Freecell Solver was the best possible license I could have chosen for it. Now, I probably would have used the MIT X11 license which is almost PD, but is more sane legally. The reason is that I want people to use my library in commercial environments. Most of the Freecell implementations in the world are shareware, and as such their authors cannot accept the terms of the GPL. I don't want to force the free software philosophy upon a developer who worked a lot for producing something nice and is now looking forward to be payed for part (however small) of his effort. Freecell Solver as a public domain library is something these developers can link to their code, and forget they ever owed me anything.
When I met Richard M. Stallman IRL and asked him about it, he said that if he would have been me, he would have wanted to give an edge to free software by making Freecell Solver GPLed. It's a good point, I suppose, but it's not what I'm aiming to do. I'm creating software because it's fun and I release it because it makes the world a better place. If I can make many shareware (or full-fledged commercial apps) more usable or fun because of my solver, then the world would be a better place. If I release a GPLed solver into the world, and no one will use it because of its G-license, then the world is not a good a place as it could have been. (Note that I'm not trying to defame RMS here, and it is possible he did not have too much time to think about it when I confronted him)
Another good point is "abuse". Say that a vendor takes my solver, hacks on it and improves it and then releases it without the source or under a more restrictive license to give an edge over the competition. It did not really happen to me before, but I don't think I'll find it insulting. For once, this vendor made a lot of effort of understanding my code (which should be quite a feat), and then his own effort of hacking it. So what if my code was the basis - he still deserves his effort. Plus, it can give me some good ideas for improving on my own codebase. At the same time he earns some money, which he can keep, so we both enjoy it. One of the best ideas I got for my solver was from a competing solver called Freecell Tool. It had a randomized scan with a specified seed, which gave me an idea to implement such a thing in Freecell Solver. I did, and it worked beautifully.
Another reason, is that having a Public Domain license practically kills the rest of the GPLoid or alternatively completely proprietary competition. (once your code is good enough) Who will want to use something else when a PD alternative is available?
I recall the time that Stallman himself endorsed the LGPL-to-BSD licensing change for Ogg Vorbis. So if a fire has caught the firs, what will the moss on the wall say?
