This is factually incorrect.

I do understand why you'd say it, because it sounds balanced and reasonable at face value, but time and time again we've seen what happens when the word of the GPL is followed, but the spirit isn't.

Centralising copyright ownership in a single organisation (particularly a commercial entity which may be acquired or choose to protect its existence violently) is a threat to communities which aim to co-develop.

In a true co-developing community, a single participant doing something stupid or destructive doesn't hurt everyone else.

In a single-entity, single-owner project, only one participant needs to do something stupid or destructive and it will affect everyone else, and they may not have any say in the matter. Corporate takeovers, bankruptcies, falling profits, new leaders... all these things can provoke such a situation.

That won't happen in projects like Apache and GNOME, which are truly collaborative, decentralised, co-developed, multi-author, multi-copyright-holder projects.

You are right, but personally I feel that the GPL is inviting abuse: it is THE license that made the dual-licensing business model possible, and the reason why companies are requesting copyright assignments (even if they don't plan to do anything with it right now, but just in case).

So you can talk about "the spirit of GPL", but this spirit is too tainted with a political agenda that made it a double edged sword.

Heck, the biggest supporters of AGPL are companies that sell web-related platforms or libraries for a living and slapping an "open-source" label on such packages is good marketing.

Here's some food for thought: if OpenJDK would've been licensed with Apache version 2, a fork would have already happened. GPLv2 was chosen for a reason ;)

You're quite correct, the Open Core model (and, to some extent, the proprietary relicensing system as well) is made possible because of the way copyleft works. I've previously written that <a href="http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware... is only a tool, and the tool can be used for good things and bad things too</a>. I also agree that permissive licensing is <em>much better</em> than GPL+OpenCore.

Here's the thing: The GPL combined with copyright assignments makes the dual-licensing business model possible. This is why we need to study carefully how this is done, and consider the consequences of assigning copyright.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the BSD-style and MIT licenses. I don't care how or why anyone uses my code, I just want a little credit for writing it.

How carefully have you thought about that?

Are you fine with someone integrating your code into a GPL project that competes with you, and potentially out-competes your project?

I have, and I am. If I write some code, and Microsoft takes it and improves Windows, I've just helped a zillion people, regardless of how much I dislike Microsoft, and regardless of the fact that I won't see a dime or any credit.

I do think the opposing position has merit, I just don't take the same position personally.

The reason I mentioned a GPL project specifically is that that would be competing directly with the BSD project for the hearts and minds of the open source community. For some people I think that would be harder to swallow than say Microsoft using the code in Windows.

Three comments that I regard as incorrect:

Either the GPL is sufficient to keep participants harmonious or it isn't.

This essay embodies everything that keeps the free software movement from greatness.

Alas, the movement is perpetually suspicious of those who want it to flourish.

That they are or are not correct is your opinion, not matters of fact.

The statements above are also the OPs matters of opinion.

I had a hunch you were conflating the concepts of fact and opinion. At least I now know what you meant, though.

OK, I won't take the shortcut then: Your opinions are not supported by the facts. :-)

I'm glad you're taking this in good humor. As it happens, I'm ok with the possibility that the essay does not completely capture everything that keeps the movement from greatness, and that the community may only be paranoid sporadically, but I'm keenly interested in what sort of facts could support the notion that "A and not A" might be true for some value of A.

:-)

Because there's a lot of grey area between those binary states, and plenty of examples of the GPL being used for good and/or evil to various degrees.

Either the GPL is sufficient to keep participants harmonious or it isn't.

You could say I'm arguing that the GPL isn't enough to keep participants harmonious, and therefore accepting the binary nature of your claim... but in the context of your post, I think you're conflating the GPL with all kinds of other social interactions in FLOSS projects, and carving its impact into binary positions can't give you an answer based on fact and experience.

(phew)

(0) (the quote) is not in contradiction with (1) and (2). It is (1), a break from the situation implied in (0), that necessitates (2).

If all the contributors own their part and license it under the GPL, this ensures a level playing field. The GPL provides a shield for all involved. If they all assign copyright to a single entity, they lose their shield and this entity has the advantage. This is why that entity should provide something in return: a GPL-like guarantee.