To: esr@thyrsus.com
Look at the economics from the Programmers* perspective:
If he is to set aside the enormous time and effort it takes to write a
program** he has to get something out of it.
0) "To scratch an itch" can be one of those things
But why even ever release the program in that case? It makes no
economic sense to the programmer: he already has what he wanted to
create: by his own hand; there is little reason to release it to
others.
1) To be paid in the labor of others (should they choose use the
product of his labor)
Constructively; This is why the GPL exists (especially according to
Linus, who was always adamant about "getting contributions back"): to
be paid in /kind/ instead of fiat or currency.
That is: though forgoing direct monetary remuneration: the programmer,
by choosing a share-alike license is targeting remuneration in the
form of being able to access any changes and improvements made to his
Work. That is his pay.
That's why OpenSouce exploded: because programmers believed that they
would have their hobby projects improved. This makes sense to the
high-school and undergrad college kids who actually start the
opensource projects; which later grow and grow because of the
share-alike understanding. Linus started his kernel in the same way:
during the same stage of life.
Linus hammered home time and time again that: everything's fine
as-long as the code is open. In video, in written correspondence, for
decades. So much so you could argue in court that the Standard
Practice of the "Linux"(Kernel) industry is incorporated into the
terms. Grsecurity has violated both the text of the GPL license, and
the instructions Linus has given; and the understanding that all the
programmers who voluntarily contributed their labor to Linux: and the
wider OpenSouce movement.
This choice... is not being honored. Not anymore.