> It's really annoying to have to explain to a true believer (of GPL) that it potentially taints codebases it mixes with. The GPL doesn't "taint" anything. You

> It's really annoying to have to explain to a true believer (of GPL) that it potentially taints codebases it mixes with. The GPL doesn't "taint" anything. You're complaining about how Free Software supporters argue but you don't seem to understand what those arguments are. You would have the same problem if you mixed proprietary software into you codebase, because copyright "taints" derivative works. > Can't remember the last time I heard ... complaining about freeloaders. Why do you feel entitled to free (as in beer) code? > No entity wants to risk their hard work to become a derivative of a smaller project they pull in. Yes, including GPL licensed projects. If you don't like the price of distribution license, you can always ask about licensing the code under other terms. > Which could cause them to look elsewhere Yes, that's the goal. Using community code is very inexpensive when you accept the GPL's terms, but the low price requires a payment where you are required pay back to the community in a similar way to what you took from the community. This is a protection against freeloading. If you don't want to participate, that's fine, but you get to pay the financial, legal, and social costs of using a proprietary solution. > Nintendo > the potential reciprocity from a big player Good luck getting much out of Nintendo. They are famous for their iron first attitude regarding copyright. A current example is their abuse[1] of YouTube's contentID system. While there have been occasional exceptions, it is incredibly naive to expect voluntary altruism - which almost always has some costs and little profit potential - from profit-focused corporations. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlzEr10NY3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlzEr10NY3M