A bit late maybe, but GPL does not only hinder proprietary software, it also prevents the use of a more permissive license, such as MIT. Personally I would neve

A bit late maybe, but GPL does not only hinder proprietary software, it also prevents the use of a more permissive license, such as MIT. Personally I would never GPL any of my code because of this. I prefer a more permissive license (such as MIT or similar) but that also means I cannot put GPL code inside my code. So whenever I see GPL:ed code, whether for private (open-source) purposes or business (proprietary, closed-source), I steer clear. So if I'm not able to use the code for any purpose, does that not mean that sharing is hindered? Btw, I never said I don't believe in the morals of the free software movement, I just said I don't believe GPL is the way forward. GPL is idealistic but not very pragmatic. Open-source is the future and (ironically) a lot of big (traditionally closed-source) companies are paving the way.