> So, given this context, is there any manifesto about this particular License > choice? E.G is there a reason to avoid GPL?
Personnally, I have many reasons to avoid licenses which are not GNU GPL. I want optimal code to stay open. I mean at least to have a legal leverage. I want open code installed by default and not "improved closed version" of open code installed by default (cf apple model which is the dream of many industrials I met pushing for "closable" code licenses). But I'm ok in some **rare** cases to let a piece of open software being linked to closed source programs, then I would use the GNU *lesser* GPL (i.e. video games). If I want to preserve open code via network services, namely server side, I would use a GNU affero GPL (the most protective GNU GPL version). The GNU GPLv3 is complex because written by lawers in order to put some legal lights on some shades of the GNU GPLv2, and be a warning: "don't try to f*** that open source license" (and add a few other things which created a big disagreement between Linus and RMS, i.e. against tivo-ization). But the principles of the the license remain simple, they are just more well defined from a legal perspective (i.e. less f***able which seems to bother some people :) ). -- Sylvain
