The GPL is an amazing license to gag developers while looking like a good person in the process. Not saying that is happening here but I have seen this before where questionable motivations where the driving force behind the license choice.
The GPL is an amazing license to prevent devs from profiting off others' work without also providing access to their own. Some might call that a "gag" because they're prevented from using the code without opening their own code as well, so it's closed to them for all practical purposes.
Is that the kind of gag that you're talking about, or did you mean something different?
> Is that the kind of gag that you're talking about, or did you mean something different?
I meant that the GPL as a license can be used to gag others while keeping a positive image as a person yourself. There are many licenses that can be used like this (the CDDL in particular was used for that purpose). That in itself has nothing to do with the GPL, more that you as a copyright holder have the ability to do things that are not available for others.
I don't understand what you mean by "gag" and "positive image".
The GPL is a very good license, because it has one benefit that almost all other licenses don't: it restricts use of your code to free software. If you care about software freedom, or want to live in a world where proprietary software is a thing of the past, then that should be reason enough to use it. Positive image is not a clause in the GPL, so I really don't know what you mean.
Not OP, but I think I get what they're trying to say.
The GPL requires others to follow its terms, because that's the only license of the code that's available to them. There is no clause of the GPL or any software license that I'm aware of that prevents you from doing whatever you want with your own code under different terms.
Therefore, you can do something negative (sell software that uses changes to GPL'd code without providing those sources to others when they ask for it), while maintaining a positive image ("look, I license my code under the GPL because I care about software freedom").
You can see this happening in practice with software that has a "community" edition available under the GPL, but a paid version that's not GPL'd. The holder of the copyright gets to profit off of other people's well meaning contributions (which almost certainly will have had their copyright assigned to the original copyright holder), but the people who contributed don't get the benefit of the copyright holder's changes to that code that are only available to paid customers.
You can argue that those contributors made their contributions knowing that would happen, but the fact that it is possible somewhat undermines the entire point of the free software movement.
