Why aren't they building or buying a proprietary software solution instead? Because the open source solution is cheaper, and adds more value to them that the

Why aren't they building or buying a proprietary software solution instead? Because the open source solution is cheaper, and adds more value to them that the proprietary alternatives. The GPL means that enhancements to Linux generally get contributed back to the core. That has allowed Linux to development faster, have better hardware support, etc., compared to operating systems that have a more permissive licensing scheme, such as BSD, and it's cheaper than a purely proprietary OS where one company has to shoulder the whole cost writing all of the software from scratch. So companies use Linux because it provides a better cost/benefit solution than the alternatives. I will argue that the GPLv2 helps this situation by allowing Linux to get back the software investment made by other companies and merge them back to the core code. So I will be the first to argue that the GPL approach has its benefits. But it also, at the same time, makes companies uncomfortable. So it's simply a matter of nuance. The more value you can provide, the more you can insist that that companies "give back" to the community. I believe the GPLv2, as, for at least some software projects, manage to achieve a balance which works for most of the stakeholders. And I don't consider this to be "the companies are taking advantage of free work from the community", because the companies are paying developers to work on Linux, so their are part of the community, and they are also contributing back to the community. We just need to make sure that the benefit is such that it is worthwhile for companies to continue to contribute to the community. The whole point is that this is not a zero-sum game, but that by enforcing cooperation, everyone wins. But if the GPLv3 is too scary, such that no one wants to even try out the community model, then it's a losing proposition.