Proprietary software developers calling the GPL "restrictive" never fails to crack me up (also, the GPL - unlike their EULAs - does not govern use at all, only distribution - it is a copyright license).

Every time this topic comes up I am reminded of the post by Tom Preston-Werner (GitHub founder), which I like to think of as "the anti-GNU Manifesto": open source (almost) everything - the "almost everything" being, in his words, anything that does not "represent core business value." Predictably, Preston-Werner also complains that the GPL is "too restrictive" - in his world, open source exists only to support the proprietary software business.

Not surprisingly, the "GitHub school" of open source leads to strong frameworks and dev tools, and not much else (because all the "valuable" stuff is kept proprietary). It's like the reverse of "skipping leg day."

I feel those in whatever you'd call the general opem source community that stand against the GPL are the perfect example of "freedom" loving libertarian techbros. They can't stand the idea that something could restrict their desire to do whatever they want at the expense of others.

Libre software allows everyone to own the software in some capacity without the ability to suck it for profit.

iF u GpL uR CoDe No OnE wiLL UsE iT

Meanwhile the internet is run almost singlehandedly on the back on the Linux kernel.

GPL haters just don't understand how stuff works, that's all.

They must be mispelling AGPL…

I kinda vibe with this. There was an odd wave of GPL hate that cropped up some time ago, and people started using MIT. It feels super weird. If companies want to use your code, they should probably have to commit back to upstream or pay for it.

Not letting selfish people steal code from authors that want people to share it. Well the code trolls can roll their own code and license as they see fit.