Using the GPL for a library is selfish. Why should everyone who uses your library be forced into using the GPL and giving away their own code for free as well? Some people value their time and effort, and justly expect to be compensated for it, so it's easy to see why people don't like the GPL and don't use GPL code.

The LGPL is at least reasonable enough to let people profit from their own work.

I don't think we need to turn this into a semantics argument, but let me just say this. If I write some code myself, I am free to choose whichever licence I like, and I can change my mind as about the licence whenever I like. But if I want to link my code to a GPL library, I must sacrifice my freedom of licence choice. To use the GPL library, my own work must be made GPL as well. It's a condition that gives me fewer options that I had before; and that is why I avoid GPL libraries.

I don't think this has anything to do with respecting the freedom of others. When I write software, I feel I have a personal right to grant or to withhold the source code. If I choose to release closed-source software, I'm not taking away anybody's freedom, but rather I'm just simply choosing not to grant users the right to use my source code.

You can use the word power if you prefer. Perhaps you and I don't share the same meaning of the word freedom but that's just something we have to work around. I don't think saying power instead of freedom is going to make things any clearer - because we probably have different ideas of what power means as well!

Only the product as a whole must be GPL. You can always re-release your own code under a different license (you never gave up the copyright by releasing a copy of it under GPL, you just licensed it under the terms of the GPL). The fact that you released another version of it under GPL doesn't touch that at all. The already released version of your code would of course stay released. But if you make a change to your original code under some new license you could for example disallow the use of that change in the GPL version.

Indeed. It has to do with protecting the freedom of the source code, not your or someone else's freedom. Open source code usually isn't something you write once and then it's finished and never needs an update or bug fix. But if you release it for example under the BSD license someone can fix a bug in it and never release the bug-fix (or worse, release that bug fix under a license which bars you from using the fix in your original version). The GPL (and also LGPL) prevent that by requiring you, as a clause in the license, to re-license any changes you make to the code back to the original. (The GPL in addition also asks you to release your whole project in which you use the GPL code as open source, but that's a separate clause.)

Yes, or replace the calls to the GPL library with calls to another library.

(So essentially you would be dual-licensing it then... which of course can be complicated, like what if someone contributes code to the GPLed release but you want to use that contribution in your non-GPL release.)

^[1]

So

Upon rethinking this I think Stallman was upset about the duplication of effort, not the fact that UniPress might have been making money off the code they bought. There was a thread a few years ago where someone was stupidly reimplementing line() for the Allegro library and everybody jeered him, but the Allegro license says "We trust you not to abuse our generosity." but the GPL doesn't have to trust the goodwill of someone looking to make a fast buck, it enforces it. Look at MS using the BSD stack for TCP/IP which replaced their own hopelessly broken code and (partially) using the profits from this improved implementation to do harm to the open source community. No, open source code isn't perfect, that's how people can tell MS is using the BSD stack, if you send it some particular packets it goes crazy in a particular way, but the BSD code is available for anyone to fix this problem if they can.

Why? There isn't room enough for both of us?

You have not given any reason as to why closed-source software takes away peoples freedom. You are saying something about slavery and parking cars, but I fail to see the relevance.

Do you seriously mean that the moment someone writes a piece of code, it belongs to everyone?

Have to? What if he doesn't want to?

Not the same thing. When developers of an OSS project decide to abandon it, the source is still available for all of its users.

Some things, like games, do not have replacements. A clone or a remake is hardly a consolation to the person who has savegames from the original, or perhaps likes the original's aesthetics.

Yeah, a few hours familiarising yourself with the code is generally required. I've done that before, and it's not that hard. This is especially easy if the code is written well.

Of course it is, I wasn't talking about that situation however. The situation is not "one person finds the bug, one person fixes it". The situation is "one person finds the bug; N people confirm it, one other person within that N, or outside that N fixes it; everyone benefits from the fix." The second situation happens all the time.

The mass of ignorance muzzles me. I suggest you learn about a few basics, take a deep look in what the GPL says and then we can discuss again. I hate it to repeatedly answer on stupid questions/arguments (yes, they exist!). Most of them show you did not even take a quick look into the GPL.

Look again.

As you wish, here are some examples of ignorance:

..followed by blah.

Then here:

The analogy is - so obvious - that when not releasing your software as free software, you make other people dependent on you, giving up their usual rights they have. This was just a metaphor, of course it is. But you just said:

Let's go on here:

Public context and private context in which you act, so obvious.

I am stopping here, since I don't want to spend all my time with this, it gets slightly hilarous. I can't force you to see what you don't want to see.

edit:
Personal ideals? See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBMdDaYhZA

That's not me.

Jacob, let it put it plainly for you.

You are wrong and your opinions are worthless.

K THNX BYE