> That's a pretty big exception It's not. Most of the anti-GPL free software advocates are using compatible licenses, such as the MIT or BSD licenses, and they

> That's a pretty big exception It's not. Most of the anti-GPL free software advocates are using compatible licenses, such as the MIT or BSD licenses, and they are already following all of the conditions of the GPL, since they are distributing source code. > But if you want to distribute the mix, you'd have to abide by GPL conditions. Almost everyone is already abiding by the GPL conditions when they are distributing MIT-licensed code. The only real concern about violating these conditions is to not distribute source code. If you have no intention to distribute non-free software, you should have no concern with the GPL. I just cannot understand, try as I might, why anyone would have a problem with the GPL while at the same time eschewing non-free software. If you are already doing as a matter of course what the GPL is asking you to do, why do you object to being told to do it?