Just like every other OSS license. No, not like "every other OSS license". OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD for example, allow others to modify and "close-source"

Just like every other OSS license. No, not like "every other OSS license". OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD for example, allow others to modify and "close-source" it. The license doesn't oblige them to produce or distribute the source code. xGPL however makes it mandatory for any developer to share the source code if they distribute any xGPL software that they have modified. This is why corporates don't like the xGPL - it's not because it can't be commercialized, but because of their belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. In our industry (software) this is ensured by not distributing the source of the softwares.