> The reason is GPL gives you more ability to commercialise since it gives you the copyright holder more of an edge over let’s say Amazon Inc who has decided to

> The reason is GPL gives you more ability to commercialise since it gives you the copyright holder more of an edge over let’s say Amazon Inc who has decided to accept your license to bundle it with a cloud service and extend it. They are obliged to release their source code to their customers. Not if it's GPLv2 or non-AGPL - and even then what you're describing is the opposite of the underdog-moral-problem a lot of smaller cloud services or database/infrastructure providers are facing whereby Amazon (et al.) simply offers your product or service as their service, which is allowed by all versions of the GPL because Amazon doesn't care about the source-code: they care about charging a premium for access to a hot open-source project without contributing anything back to the actual project maintainers. That's (unfortunately) an argument for going closed-source, or at least having to reserve copyrights/licenses for operating the software as a service for another company. I imagine it's like being Sherlocked by Apple, except Apple was using your work all-along.