In fact, the GPL is a legal enforcement of the concept. Unlike the common misconception, you're not obliged to give back your modifications to the original dev - you're obliged to pay it forward by giving your users the same rights you got.
(Whether this should be enforced legally is a different discussion, of course)
I like what the GPL is trying to achieve, but frankly I dislike the 'collateral damage'; blocking proprietary software from using it is fine, but it also blocks the non-copyleft licensed (MIT, BSD, Apache, etc) projects from benefiting from the code.
In the OSS/Free Software world, GPL takes and never "gives back". I'm not comfortable with that position.
Comments
In fact, the GPL is a legal enforcement of the concept. Unlike the common misconception, you're not obliged to give back your modifications to the original dev - you're obliged to pay it forward by giving your users the same rights you got.
(Whether this should be enforced legally is a different discussion, of course)
Given the number of attempted GPL violations I think that the answer is 'yes', it should be enforced legally.
Corporations would run roughshod over he rights of their users otherwise. The GPL is one of the most creative uses of the copyright system ever.
I like what the GPL is trying to achieve, but frankly I dislike the 'collateral damage'; blocking proprietary software from using it is fine, but it also blocks the non-copyleft licensed (MIT, BSD, Apache, etc) projects from benefiting from the code.
In the OSS/Free Software world, GPL takes and never "gives back". I'm not comfortable with that position.