> GPL does allow all uses. GPL does not allow use of GPL-licensed libraries and frameworks to build nonfree applications. If you do that, you violate the GPL.

> GPL does allow all uses. GPL does not allow use of GPL-licensed libraries and frameworks to build nonfree applications. If you do that, you violate the GPL. The "use" versus "build" distinction is pure semantics. And those semantics are pure post-hoc politics. For a sense of their weakness, ask: Which of the four freedoms covers building software with unmodified GPL libraries? The four freedoms say "run", not "use". It's only specific verbs, which don't clearly covering everything people do with software. > You are free to debate all you want, but attempting to redefine the commonly accepted meanings of what constitutes "open source" and "free software" amounts to the corruption of the principles that those movements were founded on, more especially for "free software". Commonly accepted is a big reach. We may both be familiar with deep cuts from the FSF.org philosophy section, but the vast majority of programmers aren't. I don't know why you mention profit. Selling exceptions to ethical licenses is legally possible, but I haven't heard anyone asking for an ethical license term bring it up yet. If you have links to folks exploring that, do share! I'm genuinely interested, and would be genuinely surprised to see that become a common model.