copyleft

I especially like the distinction in lay terms: copyleft to push freedom; non-copyleft to push adoption.

Yes, the MPL is like a non-viral copyleft.

If you are against copyright, support copyleft, which gives even big companies an incentive to dislike copyright!

Or are you really saying that anybody mislead you on the copyleft aspects of the GPL?

It might, if PHP were distributed under a copyleft license that cared about such things.

BSD folks will tend to lean permissive, while GNU/Linux folks will tend to lean copyleft.

The GPL, as a copyleft license, specifies that a distributor may not make any additional restrictions on future distributors (like users).

Because of copyleft reciprocity, all users benefit from modified and enhanced copies to the software.

A bank can use a copyleft encryption library without open sourcing their entire banking system.

Do you also support closed source software companies being able to rip off any open source code released under a copyleft license?

I, for one, like the idea of copyleft licensing (for cases where its appropriate), but don't like GPL.

This isn't to say that copyleft is automatically bad, but rather that consideration for the general development ecosystem is a worthwhile consideration.

GPL has taken the status of "the real copyleft license", but indeed it's an abuse of the idea of copyleft.

In Shane's talk last night, he argued against copyleft because software licenses should have "no strings attached".

Copyleft's strings say "you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it".

Their license is even called "copyleft".

Copyleft is only possible in a world with a strong IP system.

Copyleft isn't welcome on iOS, and we shouldn't blame free software advocates for that.