I disagree. Some people want to sell to consumers, not corporations. Corporations will buy non-GPL licenses so they can redistribute on their own terms, but con

I disagree. Some people want to sell to consumers, not corporations. Corporations will buy non-GPL licenses so they can redistribute on their own terms, but consumers won't because they don't intend to redistribute in the first place. It's hard to sell GPL software to consumers because as soon as someone sees it's going well, they'll rush in to sell cheaper versions of the same product, and soon it will devolve into something that's not really worth the time. I would love to see a GPL-like license that kept the code accessible and modifiable, but restricted distribution to a subset of persons approved by the copyright owner (i.e., licensed). This would actually make it viable to sell OSS to consumers. While the real GPL may be better and freer, I think that such a license would be a net benefit as it could result in much wider availability of code for programs that people run, which would be a win even if the distribution conditions were more stringent.