I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with
  the GPL.

My take is: GPL was created when a lot was different. The main product was source code, the main users were programmers/admins. The bulk of the source was for tools/infrastructure.

Now we have millions of users who could not care less about source code and modifying it. All they want is to get an app and use it, period. GPL does not fit well into this scenario, IMHO.

Though, perhaps the differences in innovation in the BSD kernels vs. Linux is demonstrative?

What is it about infrastructural applications that makes copyleft licenses more appropriate (and visa-versa)? That is, what makes them spur innovation in the infrastructural roles and hinder it in end-user roles?

The problem with the GPL in regards to user-facing software is that a developer using GPLed libraries is forced to publish ALL of his source code, even when he has not made any modifications to the library itself. In this situation there are no advantages for the developer (and serious disadvantages, even if you're not trying to sell the software for a profit but just want to maintain your rights to the source code), and there are also no advantages for the library project itself.

This is why, for example, the core engine of MongoDB is GPL licensed, but the MongoDB drivers are Apache licensed. If the drivers were also GPL licensed, developers would likely just choose to use one of the many alternatives with more palatable licenses.

What about web servers and databases that are sold as products? Why does that same argument not apply for them?

And, what about the users themselves? The GPL guarantees that everyone downstream (not just the next developer) gains the advantages of having the source be open. The hypothetical library project that licensed under the GPL does gain an advantage because they have access to the source for software that uses their code.

I definitely agree that MIT/BSD/Apache/etc. licenses give developers more options wrt. licensing and distribution. But, I don't see how that necessarily encourages innovation. Nor, do I see how that innovation is encouraged only in the case of end-user software vs. more infrastructural software.

I think that GPL vs. non-GPL in end-user software is just a difference in philosophy. I feel that it should be up to developers whether they want to open source their modifications or not. It seems that the majority of developers do publish and contribute back any modifications that are beneficial to the original project, but I don't think they should be forced to also publish the modifications that are only of any benefit to the modifier.

1. A developer writes an end-user application, but doesn't want to free their software. Clearly, this person isn't going to use GPL libraries.

2. A developer modifies an end-user application licensed under the GPL. If a developer makes a modification and then distributes that modification, then clearly it was of use to someone outside of that developer. The GPL guarantees that every person who uses that modified software gets the source.

But why is it good for an infrastructure product to be free, where it's bad for the end-user product?

Or, is this as simple as the fact that most free infrastructural products don't require the end-user product to be free. So, it's "appropriate and beneficial" for them to be free. But, most free libraries do require the end-user product to be free, so it's bad for the developer who may or may not want to make their product free. If I've accurately summarized, then at what point where does that "appropriate and beneficial" aspect disappear?

Either for some kind of selfish moral superiority, or in cases like this, where one person with a questionable agenda can shut down someone else's project:

"Before anyone grabs a pitchfork and/or torch and starts marching toward Cupertino, it's worth noting that VLC's removal from the App Store has nothing to do with Apple's preferences. Rather, it's a direct result of one man's misguided crusade... a man who, (perhaps) coincidentally, is an employee of Nokia, one of Apple's competitors in the mobile space."

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor...

For most application code, I think the non-copyleft licenses do a great job of preserving the spirit of open source software without shackling developers to a rigid doctrine they may not fully agree with.

The copyright infringement notice is not targeted to the group that created the iOS version of VLC, and their project is not being shut down. There is nothing that prevents those people developing that application and distributing it via any channel they choose, as far as that distribution channel complies with terms of GPL.

Why is it so hard to see that it is Apple which prevents having such distribution channels?

I am amazed how these people assume all the liability, support and freedom from the FOSS developers, who work without compensation, while happily accepting all the restrictions from their vendor, who they pay dearly.

How is it that I see talk about "how much I hate GPL" and "how GPL is bad for businesses/community/users/whatsoever", when an alternative of having these pieces of software distributed with GPL license is to not have them at all? The author of the software chose the license for a purpose. Without the license, choosing of which the creator has no obligations from the users whatsoever, the users will not have the software at their disposal at all.

Instead of groups of whiny self-entitled users and lynch mobs, we need people who are willing to work against restrictions imposed by businesses, and users who see themselves as members of a community and not just as consumers of others' free work.

That said, I think non-copyleft licenses like BSD are just fine. But at the end, it is the authors' privilege to choose whichever license they find suitable.

In short its not the GPL thats broken here, its the closed nature of the system in question (iOS). In the short term this might require some activism and sadly at times this might result in things like VLC being removed.

Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with the FSF, Nokia, Apple, VLC or any other party in question.

I think that's because it's news when it's a weapon but when it's a shield it just works. The majority of developers aren't trying to subvert the license; they work within the terms. You only hear about the license when somebody has broken the terms.

Then don't use GPL'd code. End of discussion.

It's also the reason I stopped hacking on Diaspora after the initial excitement wore off and I actually read the licensing terms. Well, that and their ill-advised copyright aggregation policy, which was apparently set up to allow for future dual-licensing (which I thought was pretty hypocritical).