Yes, but then people just don't use it and/or build alternatives. Not to mention that even if it's irrational, some people just do not like GPL stuff.

Aren't the "some people" the exact people you're trying to get not to use it, i.e. direct competitors or SaaS companies who give nothing back?

And nothing stops you from selling them a separate license, in exchange for money.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. People (myself included) steer clear of anything with "GPL" in it as much as we possibly can, whether the reason is rational or irrational. The reasons don't matter - it's just what happens. And so saying something like "you can sell a separate license" doesn't change that dynamic.

I am unsure what you want. To make the source available for group X, but denied to group Y?

- X presumably being someone without any potential profitability path

- Y someone who can make money from it?

I can get the rationale of not wanting Amazon and Microsoft to profit from you work, but I am unsure how you thread this licensing needle without a GPL-similar license from the start. Either you put it out in the open without restrictions (and eat the potential consequences), encumber it in such a way that no corporation wants to touch it, or you never share it.

> People (myself included) steer clear of anything with "GPL" in it as much as we possibly can, whether the reason is rational or irrational. The reasons don't matter - it's just what happens.

Okay, so then irrational people get to shoot themselves in the foot by not using quality free software. What problem is? Presumably those people will be out-competed by ones who make more sensible decisions, or at least make less money.

> And so saying something like "you can sell a separate license" doesn't change that dynamic.

But it does though? If you don't want to use software licensed under the GPL then you can go pay them money to get a different license. Which they like because they get your money. Getting money from irrational people is one of the most profitable things in the world.

And if you're neither paying them nor contributing back changes in the spirit of the GPL, why should they care if you don't use it?

I understand your position here. You're trying to apply a logical argument to something that is often emotional in nature. These things don't square, I'm sorry to say. GPL has a reputation that, for better or for worse, means people will avoid it.