> Again GPL doesn't magically make people contribute back, That's my understanding, as well, but that was never asserted, only "play nice", (re-)"release under

> Again GPL doesn't magically make people contribute back, That's my understanding, as well, but that was never asserted, only "play nice", (re-)"release under the GPL", and "gets to live as long as people value it" as you were able to quote upthread. This seems like contributing forward, not back, or downstream, not upstream. The eventual effect, for publically-released software, usually ends up being an upstream contribution, but that's not automatic. I'm not an advocating any particular license, but it does seem like you're responding to a strawman that nobody in this subthread (GPL advocate or not) has argued.