I know what the GPL does Really? Let us just cite two excerpts from your posts in this thread:
There may also be clients who don't want to "release their custom changes to the public" (which the GPL will force them to do)
the nature of the GPL forces all code to change into the GPL and be released. The software owner offers to dual license the software between the GPL and their commercial license so the corporation has comfort in their changes not being released to the public.
This second excerpt was published after two users of this forum corrected you, pointing out that a free software license (GPL included) gives the *freedom* (not the *obligation*) to redistribute the software (modified or not). No user of a free software is forced to redistribute it (modified or not).
So, assuming you really know what the GPL does (and I actually believe you do), why are you writing plain wrong detailed statements about it? I believe the answer has a name: FUD.
A new user of this forum may ask: why would t3g propagate FUD about the GPL? So that people "are scared away from it" (as he writes it himself) and prefer more permissive licenses for their projects. In this way t3g take advantage of the work put in free software under permissive licenses, "lock up the code under a proprietary license" (again, those are his own words to justify his preferences for permissive licenses) and sell proprietary derivatives at a low cost. Isn't it unethical? Sure it is.
If anything, t3g's posts have the merit make us indirectly explain the whole point of copylefted licenses: prevent unethical middle men (like t3g) to profit from the work achieved by free software developers and subjugate the users after tiny additions to the code base and a sublicensing (what the copyleft forbids).
