I like @cpnks's thing about scale -- GPL making more sense for giant projects -- but I think of GPL as a legacy license from the days when open source was a radical idea.
I think you could argue that it took radical people with radical opinions to make open source what it is today, but GPL is overkill for modern development and (in my opinion) completely unnecessary.
Attempting to control what people do with the software they create is, in my opinion, not only wildly inappropriate but also very self-defeating, as it limits the number of people who can do anything with your license. Likewise, there's this:
"Take a look at pretty much any embedded Linux project and you will find a GPL violation. For example, most ARM devices are unusable without binary drivers that rely on specific builds of specific Linux kernel versions (example - you can't get sound or accelerated video on the Raspberry Pi!). I've had one plug computer maker tell me they have a custom version of Linux and they won't provide the source."
(from @sedachv's comment)
The sheer number of GPL violations out there in real life point to the fact that the license is unenforceable in practical terms, because of the legal budget a project would need in order to prosecute what is essentially an epidemic of victimless crime. If your project uses GPL, you're more likely to see an increase in corporations shrugging off open source licenses (or laughing at them) than an increase in corporations contributing code back. GPL violations are not a criminal matter. You can only enforce them with civil lawsuits. Who's going to pay for that?
Imagine if Linux aggressively asserted its rights under the GPL against every violator out there. it'd be a full-time job for a whole team of lawyers -- an astronomical expense which absolutely nobody would benefit from, except for the lawyers themselves.
There's absolutely no reason to expect companies to comply with the GPL, other than good manners and good ethics, both of which are rarer than they ought to be. The GPL just encourages those qualities to become even rarer. It's self-defeating and it's bad for open source in general.
>There's absolutely no reason to expect companies to comply with the GPL, other than good manners and good ethics
Nonsense, they are legally bound by the licence to provide source code when distributing binaries should the recipient request it. Obviously there are violators counting on not being taken to court but they are still violators and are running the risk of being being sued.
Let's say that Oracle would stop releasing the source code to the enhancements they make on Linux for their distribution, do you think Red Hat, IBM and other large contributors would just let Oracle use their enhancements while violating the GPL by not releasing their own? Hardly, they would take them to court.
GPL works well for this kind of cooperative project where lots of different players pool their resources as everyone is legally bound to release their enhancements. This obviously doesn't mean that every licence violation will be brought to justice, but the important thing is that they are in their right to so should they find it necessary.
However the fully open source development of Linux doesn't fit all projects, looking at FreeBSD it seems it's mainly being used by companies who wants to incorporate it into proprietary solutions where they make changes to the kernel/system which are used as a competitive edge and thus don't want to open source those.
Again, there is no 'one size fits all' solution and as such it's a good thing there's choice.
I think you could argue that it took radical people with radical opinions to make open source what it is today, but GPL is overkill for modern development and (in my opinion) completely unnecessary.
Attempting to control what people do with the software they create is, in my opinion, not only wildly inappropriate but also very self-defeating, as it limits the number of people who can do anything with your license. Likewise, there's this:
"Take a look at pretty much any embedded Linux project and you will find a GPL violation. For example, most ARM devices are unusable without binary drivers that rely on specific builds of specific Linux kernel versions (example - you can't get sound or accelerated video on the Raspberry Pi!). I've had one plug computer maker tell me they have a custom version of Linux and they won't provide the source."
(from @sedachv's comment)
The sheer number of GPL violations out there in real life point to the fact that the license is unenforceable in practical terms, because of the legal budget a project would need in order to prosecute what is essentially an epidemic of victimless crime. If your project uses GPL, you're more likely to see an increase in corporations shrugging off open source licenses (or laughing at them) than an increase in corporations contributing code back. GPL violations are not a criminal matter. You can only enforce them with civil lawsuits. Who's going to pay for that?
Imagine if Linux aggressively asserted its rights under the GPL against every violator out there. it'd be a full-time job for a whole team of lawyers -- an astronomical expense which absolutely nobody would benefit from, except for the lawyers themselves.
There's absolutely no reason to expect companies to comply with the GPL, other than good manners and good ethics, both of which are rarer than they ought to be. The GPL just encourages those qualities to become even rarer. It's self-defeating and it's bad for open source in general.