What do you think, 4-ch, of this controversial open source license?
Its proponents point to how it keeps free/open-source software free by preventing modified versions from being closed-source, say it reflects the attitude of "I'll share, but only if you share, too", and claim that it is responsible for lots of the open source software we have today.
Because then someone can take your code and patent it.
I can't tell if you're serious or not, >>10.
The GPL is here to force companies into sharing their modifications of source code. That's the theory.
In practice, companies don't modify GPL code, they just want to copy-paste it, but they can't because it's GPL, so they either: hide it, or get another piece of code.
Public domain by definition cannot be patented.
However some countries have difficulties of allowing their citizens to public domain their own works. Apparently they believe that they own the people thus they get to decide if your work can be public or not. :)
> However some countries have difficulties of allowing their citizens to public domain their own works.Related reading:
> In practice, companies don't modify GPL code
I prefer something more like the Ken Silverman BUILD Licence, though it's not entirely ideal (what with the weird Internet distribution bit). A movement that considers it a necessary freedom to let Joe Ratface sell my work on some CrappStore and not give me a cut can go fuck itself. Looking and modifying without selling should be enough.
I think that most importantly, the GPL is not an open source license, although it does force open source, but a free software license. The difference between open source and free software is basically just a philosophical one, so the GPL is bound to be very caught up in its philosophy.