Maybe you guys could help me on this one… but it seems to me that the different licenses have the problem of just having differing audiences.
I remember going through the various open source licenses once for my own work, just out of curiosity. GPLv3 is just ridiculous legalese to read. I felt like I actually needed to write graphs just to understand it. If the intended audience is a lawyer, this makes sense. But I don’t see why a lawyer would actually care about any of the provisions in it. I don’t see why a lawyer would want a license to be reciprocal at all. It doesn’t benefit them.
It also doesn’t benefit a business owner, based on the assumption of “My people build something, then I sell it” mentality. So when a lawyer summarizes the licenses, it doesn’t make much sense. If the business owner reads the license, it still doesn’t make much sense. If they’re looking for the “open source” buzzword, other licenses allow for that. BSD license, as much as I don’t think it’s useful, is a VERY easy to read license, and other non-reciprocal licenses similarly read fairly easily.
But to a developer, there is a lot of benefit to reciprocal licensing. I help you, you help me. I profit form my work, and the only way you can modify it is if I can use your modifications to make my product better. That’s a good deal for both parties. But the GPLv3 just sort of… needs to be understood. And I don’t think it’s an easy read for a non-lawyer to understand.
But I’m not a developer, lawyer, or businessman by profession. Are these things licenses super well understood by everyone, and perhaps I’m just not in the know? Because honestly, the only reason I would put my hobby projects under GPLv3 is out of trust that it’s probably good.