Well it's good that I never said you were then. Maybe actually read and understand my comment before responding to it next time.
I said that they aren't liked by companies that want to be able to take everything and never give back. I never said that they were ONLY liked by those companies, and I can't believe you're both capable of writing software and not capable of understanding that distinction, which leads me to believe that you must be either lying (about writing software) or trolling.
You can stay away from whatever licences you like. Their interpretation is very clear and well-known. If you think that something might be 'borderline' then don't do it. Even if it's technically fine it's almost certainly going against the intent of the licence, which is morally wrong.
The only obligation you could possibly take on is the conditional obligation that if you convey a derived work then you must make the source code available. That's not a difficult obligation, because you are already distributing the source code, because you aren't a fucking terrible human being (right?).
What you did was try to break out a cheap rhetorical trick to try to paint anyone who expresses a concern about copyleft, knowing you could always back out with "well, I never said that..."
And of course in your most recent comment you did it once again, sneaking in a back-door assumption that people who would have a problem with copyleft are "fucking terrible human beings".
You should stop doing that. Because you aren't "a fucking terrible human being", right?
Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure I've had this exact debate on HN before, but:
We went any number of rounds of this with Django a while back, precisely because there's such a large gray area. I still don't honestly know whether someone could claim we've accidentally triggered the GPL by providing a database backend module in Django that can talk to GPL'd MySQL drivers. We've just navigated as carefully as we can, there.
And no, it is not some sort of simple, settled, well-understood thing, so maybe you could stop presenting it as if it is? That'd be great.
I said that they aren't liked by companies that want to be able to take everything and never give back. I never said that they were ONLY liked by those companies, and I can't believe you're both capable of writing software and not capable of understanding that distinction, which leads me to believe that you must be either lying (about writing software) or trolling.
You can stay away from whatever licences you like. Their interpretation is very clear and well-known. If you think that something might be 'borderline' then don't do it. Even if it's technically fine it's almost certainly going against the intent of the licence, which is morally wrong.
The only obligation you could possibly take on is the conditional obligation that if you convey a derived work then you must make the source code available. That's not a difficult obligation, because you are already distributing the source code, because you aren't a fucking terrible human being (right?).