I would prefer people take my code and use it in whatever way they want - if they give back fine, if not fine too. I don't really want to put any restrictions like the GPLv3 does.
Why is it a shame if somebody wants to put restrictions on the use of his software?
According to you it's a shame if people want to sell software, either open or closed source,
either for money or for giving back your code?
Thats not what I said at all.
You said: "it's a shame it is GPLv3"
Yes, exactly. For the reasons I stated.
So, you say it's a shame if somebody publishes opensource code under a license that requires you to give back your code.
But isn't it a shame if people only want to take and not to give back?
It's a shame that my baker asks money for his bread. This way I can't take his bread without giving him money. My baker is too restrictive...
Karel, I'm a big proponent of open source software and I suspect we can agree on most things open source.
However, to understand why I think it is a shame that this particular code is licensed under GPLv3 you have to understand the subtle but important differences between the various open source licenses and in particular what makes GPLv3 problematic in this case.
I don't want to use your baker analogy because well, analogies like that are not precise nor well translated.
Imagine instead that an instrument manufacturer is creating a new advanced instrument and have invested 10 man years or more of engineering work into implementing its micro-controller firmware. Now, if the manufacturer wants to use this specific GPLv3 VXI11 implementation to add a VXI11 feature to the instrument, that means the manufacturer would also be forced to release all firmware code under the same GPLv3 license basically inviting competing instrument manufacturers to simply take/steal the entire firmware work when the product is released. This is clearly a futile way for an instrument manufacturer to make money.
Instead, if the same VXI11 implementation is released under a more permissive license such as a BSD type license or even LGPLv2 then the instrument manufacturer is free to use the VXI11 implementation without compromising the rest of the heavily invested firmware. This way the instrument manufacturer might end up actually using and improving the open source VXI11 implementation and, in case of LGPLv2, be obligated to give back those improvements and, in case of a BSD type license, not be obligated to give back but might feel inclined to do so anyway simply to avoid self maintaining any improvements long term. Also, optimistically, if the instrument manufacturer can't use the GPLv3 VXI11 implementation the manufacturer might start their own VXI11 open source project instead of contributing to the original project and that would ultimately result in a waste of community resources.
Open source licensing is complicated and one has to choose carefully which license to use to maximize the use and success of any open source project.
I don't want to turn this into a big GPLv3 discussion thread but I'm not alone in expressing my concerns with GPLv3 - there are valid reasons why the BSD people dislike GPL and also why Linus Torvalds continue to license the Linux kernel under GPLv2 instead of GPLv3.
Anyway, I hope it is now clear to everyone why I think it is a shame this particular open source VXI11 code is licensed under GPLv3 instead of a more permissive open source license. Hence my original statement.