So, if Google doesn't have a problem with the GPL or doesn't think it's dangerous, what's the software that originally came from Google that was GPL-licensed? Your gcc example doesn't count, because like I said, Google was coerced to use it for gcc. When did Google license something under the GPL because they wanted to defend their copyleft?
And yeah, the practical problem with the AGPL that you have is that you think your company will be destroyed if the world could see your source code. That's why you tell all of your employees that they can't even consider touching software that's AGPLed. So, what are you hiding there?
The only reason Google will use GPLed software is because they managed to de-fang it. Once the AGPL put the fangs back in, oh no, can't have that.
For Google, like for Apple, Microsoft and Facebook; free software is only intended for relatively unimportant scraps. The real meat, the real code, must remain secret, must remain safe. That's how you can control the users, how you can better target ads at them. Imagine the havoc if we could see the source code for AdSense or Gmail!
On the other hand, thank you for clarifying how the CLA works. No sarcasm here, I'm honestly thankful about that. Sorry, I was wrong about that.
I think most people in the ecosystem are happy that Google doesn't tend to use the GPL, since doing so would make it more difficult to use that code commercially.
In commerce, GPL'ing at the origin is mostly a tactic for protecting the commercial value of code; for instance, Sourcefire kept Snort under the GPL so that nobody could effectively compete with them using the Snort codebase, since they had the asymmetric ability as copyright owners to make private enhancements while competitors needed to public; Sleepycat GPL'd their database so that commercial software projects that wanted to use BerkeleyDB had to pay for an alternate license, &c.
Taking from a GPL project and refusing to contribute back to it on GPL terms is antisocial, but then, Google doesn't do that (they do they opposite, contributing more than any normal software firm).
But declining to originate software under the GPL isn't antisocial. I appreciate what the GPL does and have used it for projects myself, but virtually anyone who works professionally knows to think twice before adopting GPL'd libraries and thus constraining their future options.
I don't think this criticism of yours really makes any sense.
Also, as a bystander to this little debate on HN, the sincere thanks you just gave was a good start, but you also cast aspersions on his motives for discussing this here, and I think you owe him an apology as well. It's an HN rule not to say those kinds of things about other commenters.
I refuse to accept the conclusion that the GPL is anti-commercial or that it makes it more difficult to use code commercially. I think the companies who are indeed the vast majority, who think that the only way to commercialise software is to hide the source code and keep things secret are overall wrong.
When none of Google, Microsoft, Apple, or Facebook actually originate code under the GPL, all this does is further this conclusion that seems so unquestionable to you that the GPL is anti-commercial or restrictive or just something to hesitate about. What the big guys do the little guys believe. We need more free software, and we need to defend the proliferation of free software, and we need to protest against those who work against free software, who control our search results and the ads shown to us and the information collected about us behind the veil of secret source code.
I refuse to apologise for questioning Google's motives. Their GPL refusal, except when forced to, is not a good thing. If they wanted free software they would be doing things like pursuing the rampant GPL violations in Android devices or defending their copyleft against VMWare's attempts to circumvent Linux, not leave it to charities like SFC.
In this case, DannyBee has said he designed some of Google's motives, so the distinction is difficult to make. I guess I am not understanding exactly what offense I committed. This is a failing on my part, and if you can clearly pinpoint what I said that requires an apology, I would appreciate it.
And yeah, the practical problem with the AGPL that you have is that you think your company will be destroyed if the world could see your source code. That's why you tell all of your employees that they can't even consider touching software that's AGPLed. So, what are you hiding there?
The only reason Google will use GPLed software is because they managed to de-fang it. Once the AGPL put the fangs back in, oh no, can't have that.
For Google, like for Apple, Microsoft and Facebook; free software is only intended for relatively unimportant scraps. The real meat, the real code, must remain secret, must remain safe. That's how you can control the users, how you can better target ads at them. Imagine the havoc if we could see the source code for AdSense or Gmail!
On the other hand, thank you for clarifying how the CLA works. No sarcasm here, I'm honestly thankful about that. Sorry, I was wrong about that.