Your example does not solve this problem: You may rely on some excellent GPLed softwares, but you want to distribute it with some close-source softwares. Then you might become the lazy programmers. I can see how GPL fans hate close-source software, but they can also choose another license, so programmers could share their works easier, also get more ideas from non-GPL fans.
ADDED: This same problem originates from close-source software, so GPL is another extreme I don't like. People from both sides still continue to develop great softwares, but what about MIT/Apache/BSD/...-licensed softwares? I choose the golden mean. I don't mean GPL is a bad thing, I just don't want to blindly support it. Times are changing.
The world of free software would not exist today without the GPL. If everyone had used lax licenses, companies would've made proprietary forks and driven free software out of existence.
Also, choosing MIT because "it's the middle ground" is a middle of the road fallacy. The GPL ensures users will always have freedom when using the software. Lax licenses provides no such assurance and proprietary software obviously doesn't provide anyone freedom.
The purpose of the GPL is to halt malicious companies from using free software to mistreat users. The middle ground isn't better in this case.
Even if the source is guarded by GPL, the idea behind the source can be copied and represented in another form. Then the freedom defined by GPL is obscure to me. MIT licenses saves me from time-consuming copycat situations. Yeah, I am lazy, but I'm more willing to share (hard-working now) if you don't push me to extreme.
I know the pattent laws in the past were somewhat ridiculous compared to what they are today (though still ridiculous sometimes), so GPL was/is really great then, just like the Creative Commons licenses.
Free software licenses have to do with copyright law, not patent law. And the only major change in copyright law in the last few decades was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which isn't super relevant to the issues in free software.
Oh yes, thank you. I always relate free software to patent trolls, because software patents have huge impact on software development. When I relate GPL to Creative Commons, I mean they are good role models for defending legal rights and interests.
Patents and copyright are not related. But yes, software patents are still ridiculous, and getting more so.
As for "the idea behind the source". Feel free to take the "idea behind the source" of FFmpeg or VLC or Linux. The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. As for "but I'm a poor developer, etc" then you have two choices:
1. Use the GPL code and comply with the GPL. This is actually a good thing if you care about your users' freedom.
2. Don't use the GPL code.
Simple as that. There is no third "but I want to use the GPL without complying" option.
> The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom.
Still, you cannot exactly explain what the freedom is. Proprietary softwares can copy the ideas without contributing back. I know manpower is important, so another great softwares similar to FFmpeg/VLC/Linux with MIT/BSD/... licenses won't appear very soon.
If your freedom just means
1. Hey, just look at our GPL-licensed softwares, you propietary softwares can't use our code directly without any contribution.
2. Everyone should sell services, not code, for a more open world.
then I've already understood. And I don't believe GPL can do much better than MIT/...
The fact that it would take several man-years to replicate a large GPL project is enough of a deterrence. And the freedom is quite clearly defined by the FSF:
0. The ability to run the program as you wish.
1. The ability to modify the program and run the modified program. This requires source code.
2. The freedom to distribute exact copies of the software and source code.
3. The freedom to distribute modified copies of the software and source code.
The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work. If someone decides to completely replace your software with an alternative, that's fine. But if it's not worth their time (hint: it usually isn't) they'll begrudgingly grant their users the freedom that you wanted them to have in the first place.
The GPL does do much better than lax licenses like the MIT at both points. With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made.
> The fact that it would take several man-years to replicate a large GPL project is enough of a deterrence.
So what? Proprietary softwares have said similar words enough.
> The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work.
Okay, this is the only big difference, the "virus". I can use MIT to fight GPL.
> With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made.
My two points above are mainly for GPL. For MIT, that will be:
1. Our open-source softwares are used by more and more people, welcome to contribute if you don't want to see our softwares running everywhere with bugs in your operating system.
2. Our open-source softwares are great and free of charge.
3. Welcome to use our code for your proprietary softwares, dude. There are more and more open-source developers waiting for you.
ADDED: This same problem originates from close-source software, so GPL is another extreme I don't like. People from both sides still continue to develop great softwares, but what about MIT/Apache/BSD/...-licensed softwares? I choose the golden mean. I don't mean GPL is a bad thing, I just don't want to blindly support it. Times are changing.