>>>From reading the GPL itself, it seems possible that the authors thought that releasing solid code under the GPL would somehow force closed-software software to move to open source. I don't know how practical this really is in general.
What happened was that RMS saw his early Emacs releases being incorporated into closed-source products without permission, credit, or public disclosure of improvements, so he created the GPL to stop that practice, and to enforce his notion of 'freedom.'
There is a separate assumption that certain GPL software is a shared resource so unique and valuable that developers will be willing to share the source in return for the benefit of being able to use it. GCC, the Linux kernel, and Emacs are examples of this. There are, in fact, many instances where companies would not have contributed back their custom modifications to GCC if the GPL hadn't forced their hand.
Me, I use the OpenBSD license, but, like you, I respect those who prefer the GPL.
by GCC boy — Apr 07
What happened was that RMS saw his early Emacs releases being incorporated into closed-source products without permission, credit, or public disclosure of improvements, so he created the GPL to stop that practice, and to enforce his notion of 'freedom.'
There is a separate assumption that certain GPL software is a shared resource so unique and valuable that developers will be willing to share the source in return for the benefit of being able to use it. GCC, the Linux kernel, and Emacs are examples of this. There are, in fact, many instances where companies would not have contributed back their custom modifications to GCC if the GPL hadn't forced their hand.
Me, I use the OpenBSD license, but, like you, I respect those who prefer the GPL.