If the author is required to publish the source code, guess what his second to market competitors will have to do as well? Free software is not an ideological e

If the author is required to publish the source code, guess what his second to market competitors will have to do as well? Free software is not an ideological exercise. It has its benefits. The author missed out on a huge opportunity. The author is greedy. GPL v3 successfully cut off the parasite. Good riddance. Now, he does make a good point though. We have to think strategically. Read gnu.org for details but here is the cinch: if there are commercial alternatives to what you are making, make your licensing liberal (arguably android because iOS existed and WinPoo 7 was apparently in the works). This encourages adoption of foss. However, when foss has the market cornered, don't let the big guys take your ball and run home. Use GPL v3. The author is greedy. GPL v3 successfully cut off the parasite. Good riddance. Now, this was a real soap box. Let me hop off it real quick.