Some of you know of my general distrust in GPL and other open source models. I think it can be helpful but in many cases, it leads to no good because especially GPL is forcing the model on any project which aims to derive from it. In some cases, it doesn't even have to be a direct derivation but merely the same idea or the same technical approach.
From my experience, I remember an example where dev A provided code to manage instances of shared objects / dynamic link libraries (.so, .dll) completely in-memory. It is okay if a non-technical person doesn't understand the purpose of such a technique - the point is: it is an idea with an approach and dev B came up with a similar idea, independently from dev A. Now dev A had his code under GPL and in the end, DCMA'd dev B because his code was similar (!), however completely independent from the code of dev A. Dev A now required dev B to put his code under GPL too because his license says so. Obvious, that this situation is - excuse my wording - shit.
This is my opinion and you don't have to agree. But recently, I found another example of a project which ran in a similar trap: www.spigotmc.org/threads/dmcad…
In this case, a person named Mr. Wolfe is an ex developer of project "Spigot" to which he filed a takedown request. But why?
There is another project with the same purpose called "Bukkit" but this other project got acquired by a company called "Mojang" which incorporated it in a commercial product. During the aquiration, code from "Bukkit" migrated to the commercial product. Code, Mr. Wolfe allegedly wrote under GPL. In consequence, he offered two options: either the commercial product becomes GPL (completely illusional, IMO) or he would file a takedown request. And why is "Spigot" involved? Simple. "Spigot" uses the same code. Mr. Wolfe now states, that "his" code is belonging to Mojang (and the problem with them is that they don't have their product under GPL) and this means, "Spigot" is using code owned by Mojang through the acquiration of "Bukkit".
Yes, I know it sounds complicated and yes, it is. Did I understand and/or state the situation wrong? Please correct me in the comments in this case because it is really hard to see through it.
In any case: legally, he might be right because his license, the GPL, indeed allows him to make his claim. What he forgets, though: both, the other open-source project and the commercial product have a gigantic community behind them. This community does now not have access to the downloads and code folders the project offers. The project is essentially completely on halt and public access has been denied until the case is decided.
The question is: who is helped if somebody goes war vision just for the sake of GPL? The license itself is actually a not-so-bad idea but it simply can't work because there will always be someone who claims an idea or a piece of code is "his" (or "hers") and you can work with the best belief but once it happens, your project is doomed if you don't have resources to go legal on it.
Not that I expect it - it is simply taking the unfortunate example of Spigot and mapping it to the Apophysis project - but let's play a mind game: if now an old Apophysis/flam3 developer came and DCMA Apophysis 7x, do you think I would feel like going on court for it? Certainly not. The project would be closed, all downloads and code resources would be taken of the web, end of story. And who is helped by this? Exactly.
My personal way is that whenever I get to decide on the license (it is not the case for Apophysis because I have to stick to the provided license), I decide against GPL and in many cases, also against open source.
The above is a simple expression of my own opinion. Feel free to disagree, I won't blame you I just made really bad experience with GPL and I think it doesn't work as it was designed and the case of "Spigot" confirms me in my opinion which is why I wrote the journal. If you want to bring counter-arguments, I'm happy to hear from you in the comments or via note. You all know, I'm a friend of civilized discussions.