The Effects of “Share Alike”
At some point along the road I must've become one of these zealous open source nutters, because a debate about the GNU General Public License got stuck in my craw this weekend. The GPL is my license of choice. When you license software under the GPL, you're saying it's free for everyone to use, modify, and redistribute as long as everyone makes their modifications free to use, modify and redistribute under the GPL as well. Developer Daniel Jalkut argues that this "share alike" requirement stifles GPL-licensed code adoption by developers who don't want to (or can't) GPL their work. Jalkut writes:
GPL communities are open and embracing of other GPL developers, but generally off-putting to liberal-license and closed-license developers. [...] Many GPL developers take comfort in the fact that their hard work can’t be quietly taken and incorporated into a commercial product, without any payback of time or money to the original project. But you’re piloting an open source project, and the first step of building a community is to get people in the door. [...] If you operate from the presumption that great developers love to build great projects, the first step in any successful open source project is to get as many great developers in the door as possible.
Jalkut's right about one thing: Great developers do love to build great projects. He may be right about another: Some developers may have to pass on using GPL code because they're not willing or able to share-alike their changes to it. But the one really attractive part of using the GPL that he's missing is this: Great developers love to build projects that more people will use. The GPL is my software license of choice because "share and share alike" spreads the impact of my work. What motivates great individual developers isn't always money, it's ego.
I'm 


