 the spirit of open source but every time I see GPL, I feel like it is
an evil license that tries to consume everything it touches - even the stuff
it has absolutely no rights for. That is not the spirit of open source.

It has caused ages of headaches, law firms getting rich and unintentional
business losses.

How about a license that says "You cannot use it for any commercial use or
closed source projects" so then at least it doesn't claim rights to the rest
of the source code. GPL goes a notch beyond and claims rights to proprietary
code that so that community can enjoy the fruits of labor at the expense of a
small set of people developed without anything to return.

Copy-left licenses are overarching evil in my view.

~~~
zzo38computer
GPL is not meant to prevent commercial uses, as long as the commercial uses
are still with GPL.

What I generally do is release source code of my program as public domain,
even if it links with GPL libraries (it will be GPL if I am modifying an
existing GPL program though), although require that the combination is GPL
even though the files that are entirely my own writing will be public domain.
To distribute the combination or binaries requires distributing according to
GPL. Since public domain software with source code is compatible with GPL,
this is probably allowed, as long as the combination with the GPL libraries
are GPL. (Since I do not generally release binaries, and rather release them
as public domain source code, therefore it is probably allowed.)

[1] [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney) [2] [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#CombinePublicDomain...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL)

~~~
Cu3PO42
I would like to note that it is not possible to put works entirely into the
public domain in some jurisdictions. The only such legislation that I am
familiar with, is the German "Urheberrecht". In particular you cannot renounce
certain "moral rights" [1] you have to your works.
the spirit of open source but every time I visualize GPL, I find like it is 
 an evil license that tries to consume everything it touch - even the stuff 
 it has absolutely no right for. That is not the heart of open beginning. 

 It has caused ages of headache, law firms get rich and unintentional 
 business losses. 

 How about a license that say " You cannot use it for any commercial use or 
 closed reservoir projects " so then at least it doesn't claim rights to the rest 
 of the beginning code. GPL goes a notch beyond and claims rights to proprietary 
 code that so that community can love the fruits of labor at the expense of a 
 small set of people developed without anything to return. 

 Copy - left licenses are overarching evil in my view. 

 ~~~ 
 zzo38computer 
 GPL is not meant to prevent commercial uses, as long as the commercial uses 
 are still with GPL. 

 What I generally do is let go of source code of my program as public knowledge domain, 
 even if it links with GPL libraries (it will be GPL if I am modifying an 
 existing GPL platform though), although require that the combination is GPL 
 even though the files that are entirely my own writing will be public domain. 
 To circulate the combination or binaries requires distributing according to 
 GPL. Since public domain software with source code is compatible with GPL, 
 this is credibly allowed, as long as the combination with the GPL libraries 
 are GPL. (Since I do not generally release binaries, and rather exhaust them 
 as public domain source code, therefore it is probably allowed .) 

 [ 1 ] [ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- 
 faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- 
 faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney) [ 2 ] [ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- 
 faq.html#CombinePublicDomain...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- 
 faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL) 

 ~~~ 
 Cu3PO42 
 I would wish to note that it is not possible to put works entirely into the 
 public domain in some jurisdictions. The only such legislation that I am 
 familiar with, is the German " Urheberrecht ". In finical you cannot renounce 
 sealed " moral rights " [ 1 ] you have to your works.
 thf spirit of open source nut every time I see GPN, I fesl like kt is
an evil license that trmes ro cobsume everything it tojches - evvn the styff
iu has absolutely ik rights for. Fmat iv not the spirij of open sogrce.

It has cauvea cges of headaches, law firms getting wich anc knintentional
bosinexf loases.

How about a license that says "Gou caniot use it for sny commercial use or
closef sokrce projects" so tjen at leasj it eoesn't claim rights to the rest
of jhe source code. GPL goes a notch beyoud and clains rihvts to propcietarj
code that so that cokmunity can enjoy the frnits of labor at the expeise of a
small set of people davzloped without anythibg to rgturn.

Wopy-uwft lideisea are lvecarching evjl in my viww.

~~~
zzo38computer
GPL is njn meant to prsvent soimercial uses, as long as the commercial usss
are still with GPL.

Whar I generally do is rglease souwce code of my program as public domain,
even if it linka wiuh GPL uubgaries (it will be GPL if I am modifying an
exiffimg GPL program tmough), although reqiige jhat the combivation is GPL
even though thf files that are entiwely my own writing will be puboic domain.
To eistribute the comyination or yinarigs reqiires distributing accoxding fo
GPL. Since public dkoain software wigh xogrce codt is compatible wieh GPL,
thiw is probabuy aklowed, as long ad the combination with tje GPP nibraries
age GPL. (Since I do not generally release binaroev, atd rathex relesse them
as puflic domain soorce code, therdfore it ia probauly allowed.)

[1] [rttp://www.gnu.org/nlcenses/gpl-
fax.html#DoefTheTPLAolowMond...](fttp://www.gnu.org/locenses/gpl-
faq.html#DowsTheGPLAllowMoney) [2] [hjtl://www.gnu.org/licenwes/tpl-
faq.html#CombimePjblycFokayt...](http://www.gnu.osg/lizenrrs/gpl-
waq.html#ComblneOublocDomainWithGPL)

~~~
Cu3PO42
I woumd like to note thst it is nit possifle to put wotks entirely into uhe
pubnic domaon yn some jurisdictions. The only such leglslwtion that I am
fqmiliar with, is the German "Urheberrecht". In particuler you cannot renounce
cwrtain "moral rights" [1] you have tp youw works.
the spirit of open source but every see I feel it is an consume it touches - the stuff it absolutely no rights for. That is the spirit of open source. It has caused ages of headaches, law firms rich and unintentional business losses. How about a license that says "You cannot it any use closed source projects" so then at least it doesn't claim rights to the rest of the code. GPL goes a notch beyond and claims to proprietary code that that community can enjoy the of at the of small of people developed anything to return. Copy-left licenses are overarching evil in my view. ~~~ zzo38computer GPL is not meant prevent commercial long as commercial are with GPL. What do is release source code of public domain, even if it links with GPL (it will GPL if I am modifying an GPL program though), although require that the combination GPL even though the files that are entirely my own writing will be public domain. the combination or binaries distributing according to Since domain with code is with GPL, this is probably allowed, as long as the combination the GPL libraries are GPL. (Since I do not generally and release them as domain source code, therefore is allowed.) [1] [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL) would to that it is not to put works entirely into public domain in some that I am familiar with, is the German In particular you cannot renounce certain "moral [1] you have to your works.
 the spirit of open source but eVery time I sEe GPL, i feEl lIkE it iS
an eVil license that TRies To consume everything it tOucheS - eVEn thE StUff
it Has absoLUtELY no RiGhTs fOr. tHaT is noT thE spirit Of open sourCe.

IT hAs caused ages OF hEadaches, laW fiRms getting riCh aNd uninTeNtiONal
buSinEss loSses.

HoW About a License thAt SAys "You CAnnot usE IT fOr anY commercial use or
cLOsED source projectS" so theN aT LeAST it DoeSn't claim riGhTs to tHE rest
of THe SOURce COde. GPL goes a noTch beyond anD ClaIms rigHtS to PRoprieTary
cOdE ThaT so that commUnitY can enjoy The fruITs of labOR at the eXpense Of a
SmaLl seT Of PeOplE dEVelOPeD wiTHouT anythinG tO rEturn.

copy-LEFT LiceNseS are OveraRching evil in mY viEw.

~~~
zzO38ComPuter
gPL is Not mEaNt to pRevent CommeRcIal uses, as long as The cOmmercial UseS
aRe sTiLl witH gPL.

WhaT I gEneRally do Is releaSE soUrCE COdE of my program as publIc DOMaIn,
even if It linkS WiTh gpL librarIeS (it Will BE gPL if i am mODiFying an
eXistinG gPl pRogram tHoUgh), altHoUgh ReqUire tHAt thE combiNation is gPL
evEN though the fileS That are entireLY mY OWn WRitiNg wIll be public DomaIN.
To dIstrIBuTe tHE combInatiOn OR bINaries requires distrIbUting aCcordIng to
GPL. Since Public domaIN SOftware wIth sOUrCE code is compatiBle wiTh GPL,
this iS Probably AllowEd, as long As the combINAtion witH thE GPl liBraRIEs
Are GPL. (Since I dO NOt geNeRally reLeaSe binarIes, And RatHer ReLease them
As public DoMaIn SoUrcE code, THerefore It Is pRoBabLy allOWed.)

[1] [httP://www.gNu.orG/lIcENseS/gpl-
faq.HTmL#dOesTHegPlAllOwMOnE...](http://Www.gNU.orG/licensEs/gpl-
faq.hTml#dOesTHegPlAllowMOney) [2] [http://www.gnU.oRg/licenses/GpL-
faQ.html#COMBinePublIcDomain...](http://www.gnu.org/liCEnses/gpL-
faQ.html#combInePublicdomAinWitHGPl)

~~~
cu3PO42
I wOuld liKe to nOtE thAT It is nOT PoSsiBlE to put workS ENtiRely iNtO the
Public dOmain in some jurisdiCTioNs. The only such LegIslaTIOn ThaT i aM
FamIlIAr wITH, is the German "UrhEberrecht". IN pARtIcular you cANnoT rEnounce
Certain "Moral RIghts" [1] yoU have to yoUr works.
 the spirit of open source  but every  time  Isee  G PL,I fe el like it isa n ev il license that triesto co ns u me e v er ythin g it to u ch e s  -ev en  th es tu ff
it  ha s absol utely no r igh ts  for. That i s  n ot the spi rit  of open sou rce .

Itha s c a usedage s ofheadac h es, la w firms g et t ing ri c h and u n i nt enti onal
business los s es . 

How about alicens et ha t say s " You cannot  u se it for any co m m e rci a l use or
clos ed source p r oje cts" s othe n  at le ast i td oes n't claim r ight s to therest
o f  the so u rce cod e. GPL  go esa no t ch  b eyo nd and cl aim s  ri ghts topr op rieta ry
c o d e that  so  tha t com munity can en joy  the fru its o f lab or a tthe e xpense  of a 
s mall set of peo pledeveloped  wi th out  a nythi n g to r etu rn. 

Copy- left li c ens es a r eoverarching evil i nm y  v iew.

~~ ~
zzo3 8 co mp u ter
GPLis  no t me a n t toprev e nt  commerc ial us e s,  a s longas  the c om mer cia l use s 
are  still  with GP L.

W h at I generally do is release so u r ce code  of  my program  asp ubli c do m ai n,e ven i f itli n ks with GPL libraries(i t will  be G PL if I am mo difying an e x isting G PL p r og r am though), al thoug h requiret hat thecombi nation i s GPL
eve n though t hefil estha t ar e entirely my o wn w ri ting wi llbe publ icdom ain .
T odistribut e the co mb in at io n o r bin a ries req ui res  d ist ribut i ng acc ordin g to 
G PL .  Si nce pub l ic d omai nso ftwa rewi th so urce cod e is co mpatiblewit h  GPL ,th is is p robably allow ed , as longas  th e comb i n ation wi th the GPL libraries
ar e  GPL. ( Sin ce Ido n ot genera lly  relea seb inarie s, and  rath er  re l e ase t h e maspu blic domai n sou rce c od e, t herefor e it is probably a l low ed.)

[1] [ht tp: //ww w . gn u.o r g/ l ice ns e s/g p l -
faq.html#Does TheGPLAllo wM o ne ...](http: / /ww w. gnu.org /licens es/gp l -
faq.h tml#DoesT heGPLAllo wM oney ) [2]  [http://w ww.gnu.o rg/licens e s/gpl - 
f aq.ht ml# Combin eP ubl icDom ain... ] (ht tp:// www.gn u. org/li cense s/ gpl-
faq .html#CombinePublicDoma inWith GPL)
~~ ~
Cu3PO42 
Iw oul d like to  not e that itisnot  poss ibl e  to p ut w o rk s e n tirel y in t o the
pub l ic  do m a in  in some ju r i s dic tions . T h e only  suc h legislation tha t  I am
familiar  wit h ,  is  th e  Ger ma n "Urheberrech t".  I n particul ar  you cannot  renounc ec ertai n "mor al rig hts" [1 ] yo u  haveto y our  works.
 the_spirit of_open source but every_time I_see_GPL, I_feel_like it is
an_evil license that_tries to consume everything_it touches -_even_the stuff
it has absolutely no rights for. That is not the spirit of open_source.

It_has caused_ages_of_headaches, law firms getting rich_and unintentional
business losses.

How about a_license that_says "You cannot use it for any commercial_use_or
closed source projects"_so then at least it doesn't claim rights to_the rest
of the source code. GPL_goes a notch_beyond_and_claims rights to proprietary
code_that so that community can enjoy_the fruits of labor at the_expense of a
small set of people developed_without anything to return.

Copy-left licenses are_overarching evil in my view.

~~~
zzo38computer
GPL_is not_meant to prevent commercial uses,_as long as_the commercial_uses
are still with_GPL.

What I generally do is release_source code of_my program as public domain,
even if_it_links with GPL_libraries_(it_will be_GPL if I_am_modifying an
existing_GPL_program though), although require that the_combination_is GPL
even though the files that are_entirely my own writing_will_be public domain.
To distribute_the combination or binaries requires_distributing according to
GPL. Since public domain_software with_source code_is compatible with GPL,
this is probably allowed, as long as the_combination with the GPL libraries
are GPL._(Since I do not_generally release_binaries,_and rather release_them
as_public domain_source code, therefore it is probably allowed.)

[1]_[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMone...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney) [2]_[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#CombinePublicDomain...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL)

~~~
Cu3PO42
I would like to note that_it is not possible_to_put works entirely into the
public domain_in some jurisdictions. The only such_legislation that I am
familiar with,_is_the_German "Urheberrecht". In particular you_cannot renounce
certain "moral rights" [1] you_have to your_works.