Why open source developers need to stop using a free software license
 

I've been using Linux and open source software for a number of years now and I've also used a variety of open source licenses, predominantly the GNU GPL. Up until recently I never really gave it much thought and essentially went with "If its good enough for Linux then its good enough for me". Recently I spent some time reading the GPL and the Free Software Foundations literature and I came to some conclusions that I really wasn't expecting when I started out.

Anywhom, I'd like to hear what anyone has to say about the conclusions I've come to etc.

""The GNU General Purpose License (GPL) is a tenet of the open source community, and considered by many to be the foundation of the open source movement. It facilitates the free and unhindered distribution and modification of software whilst protecting this software and its copyright owners from a multitude of potential abuses. Of course, under critical analysis, some troublesome issues arise that have serious implications for the hardworking open source community, and indicate that the interests of the programmer are not the primary concern of its creators, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), or even the license itself."

You can get the rest of it (1600 words or so) from
http://www.unprotectedhex.com/articles/gpl.pdf
http://www.unprotectedhex.com/articles/gpl.rtf
or the plain text blog post from http://preview.tinyurl.com/5fx9ob

I'd love to hear some counter arguments/comments/criticism.

-nnp

EDIT 2: Right, so apparently the title is a little too feisty for some peoples liking and I'd better explain why I went on this 'rant' in the first place. The details are all in the article/text that follows; in summary, I've become disillusioned with the GPL after years of using it and now I am much more in favour of a license like the CC ones or better still the MPL (I'm aware this recognised as a free software license also). The main reason I am more in favour of these is that they lack the viral quality of the GPL and thus don't force any licensing decisions on the programmer once they have decided they would like to use an API. At the same time the MPL also gives back to the community as any updates and improvements to the code base will be open source.

What I want from this topic is for someone to argue the counter point and show me the error of my ways. I loved and used the GPL for years and I would like nothing more than for someone to correct my interpretation of it or the logic I have applied.

EDIT: Here is the rest of the text of the article. Apparently linking to an external site so as to avoid dumping a huge mound of text into a thread is now an advertising attempt.

In the next few paragraphs I am going to outline my issues with the agenda of the FSF and the vehicle they use to promote this, the GPL. The FSF are, in my opinion, militant in their promotion of their brand of ‘freedom’ and on top of this, misleading about their true goals. As for the GPL, it suffers from a number of ethical and practical problems and goes far beyond the necessary means to maintain a healthy open source community with the requisite protections many of us have come to expect. Unfortunately, it has also become the defacto license for many open source projects and this has, in my opinion, damaged the open source community. I firmly believe that the open source community would be better served a license that promotes the open source ideals without the burden of the free software fundamentalism.

I should note at this point that I am a firm believer in open source and the freedom of knowledge. I am also in favour of many open source licenses. My issues lie with free software licenses which are rather unfortunately often confused with open source, and the way in which they are promoted.

I have issues with the GPL at two levels, the ethical/philosophical level and the practical level. My ethical problems stem from the Free Software Foundation’s definition of ‘freedom’ combined with the viral nature of the GPL. Running parallel to this, my practical concerns relate to the effect of this viral nature on open source applications and our community; namely, how GPLed code can play an insignificantly small part in an application, yet the overhead of its license can taint the whole application and the detrimental effect this could have on the use and acceptance of open source projects.

I think the GPL is much moreso a vehicle for the FSF to push their agenda than a software license designed to allow people to learn, study and benefit from the openness of software, as they would have one believe. It includes a number of clauses that go above and beyond what would be required to ensure these basic needs. For one, the clauses which make the GPL viral are completely over the top and I will deal with this later.

I think I would have much less of a problem with the FSF and the GPL if they were entirely up front about their agenda. Unfortunately, quotes like the following, from http://www.fsf.org/about, in my opinion, seek to portray the intentions of the GPL in a fashion entirely different from its actual legal meaning

“To use free software is to make a political and ethical choice asserting the right to learn, and share what we learn with others. Free software has become the foundation of a learning society where we share our knowledge in a way that others can build upon and enjoy.”

I have two issues with the above. Firstly, I dislike the mixing of political agendas into a place where they really don’t need to be and secondly, this quote uses the word ‘right’ where it should use ‘obligation’ if it is intended as a comment on the GPL or the agenda of the FSF. I say this because as you go down the road of GPL software you quickly realise a lot of decisions are being made that you would imagine would be up to you if you were truly ‘free’.

On the ethical/philosophical level I take issue with the way in which the FSF define ‘freedom’ and throw that definition about. From http://www.fsf.org/about:

“Free software is software that gives you the user the freedom to share, study and modify it. We call this free software because the user is free.”

But the user isn’t free. The user might be free to share, study and modify the source code of the program, but that freedom stops as soon as it comes to licensing issues dealing with the inclusion or use of GPLed code in a non-GPLed application. The list of absurd restrictions can be found by looking at the GPL’s FAQ at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html

From these restrictions it becomes abundantly clear that any software interacting with GPLed software at a distance closer than ‘arms length’ is, in the eyes of the FSF, required to use the GPL license itself. For many of us the freedom to chose and control the licensing models our applications will use is as important, if not more so, than the freedom granted to us by the GPL with regard to the work of others.

I should point out, when I am talking about applications that have been created with GPLed code I don’t mean they grabbed some GPLed software, made a few small changes and now want to change the license. I am talking about applications of which the core ideas, and the vast majority of the code is original and non-derivative work.

I find the license comparable to a lazy manager who claims all the credit for a project regardless of their contribution. While I agree with the idea of open source I also believe in freedom of choice, true freedom, not the Free Software Foundation’s brand of freedom, which is engineered to push their agenda. I believe that freedom of choice has a much greater precedence, both ethically and philosophically, than the concept of freedom of software and that the GPL license is a hypocritical piece of work that pushes certain freedoms and curtails others.

From a practical standpoint, the viral nature of the GPL just doesn’t hold up in my opinion. I have no problem with the stipulation that we provide the source code to any GPLed software we may use in a proprietary system, but the requirements to GPL the entire application are absurd. I find it difficult to reconcile this trait of the GPL with any aims of the open source movement that couldn’t be achieved in a more elegant fashion. The following example will hopefully illustrate my point.

Take a complex piece of proprietary software, such the controlling software for the launch sequence of a space shuttle. Now, say the developer is particularly resourceful and wants to include some software in that to do basic mathematical operations (e.g addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), but doesn’t want to write it themselves, so they go and find a GPL’ed library to do it for them. According to the FSF’s FAQ, “A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program”.

So, the 50,000 line application that contains a few calls to a GPLed math library is now an extended version of that program? Another phrase thrown about on the FSF site is ‘derivative work’. I find it hard to see the reason logically, practically or ethically that would allow one to come to this conclusion without an ulterior and rather arrogant agenda.

As I mentioned already, I agree entirely that any modifications or improvements to this math library should be made public and open source and, in the spirit of open source, I also agree the final version of the math library, included in the proprietary system, should be made public and free of charge. This deals with a situation mentioned by the FSF where one could end up competing with a proprietary version of their own code and at the same time contributes well tested and high quality code to the open source community.

In the real world, what would probably happen in the above situation is that the GPLed math library wouldn’t be used at all because the licensing terms would be deemed unacceptable. As a result the improvements and additions made by the company during the course of their project would not be made and the open source community would suffer. In this situation the GPL only serves to antagonise the developers of the proprietary application and damage the open source community. While the former outcome is definitely within the scope of the FSF’s goals, I can’t think of any way in which the latter would be considered acceptable, given their commitment to “a learning society where we share our knowledge in a way that others can build upon and enjoy.”.

It is for these reasons I have become disillusioned by the goals of the FSF and their true commitment to learning and knowledge, which are in my opinion, far more critical than the abolishment of proprietary systems and the furthering of the FSF’s agenda. The GPL has unfortunately not been able to escape the baggage of its sponsoring organisation and as a result exceeds the rational boundaries necessary to ensure the development of the open source community and its software. On future projects I will no longer be using the GPL and am calling for any developers currently using it to re-evaluate their position. I think many of us will be able to find open source licenses that protect and promote open source software without the political and social agenda that riddles the GPL.

Well, there's no perfect licence - if there was something perfect in this world (regarding computers), we probably wouldn't need licences. Or then we wouldn't do anything but licences.

I seem to question the GPL-style licences once in a while, seeing a whole lot of other - closed/commercial - licences at work, but this far (years and years of reading) I haven't still found any reason that made them any worse than a tightly closed commercial licence. Both have their benefits - for some people, that is; not everyone can benefit from the one and same licence - but both have their drawbacks too; if there weren't any drawbacks, there would only be one God Licence that did the trick of making everyone happy.

Most importantly I think that the decicion of which licence to use should be made per-project and per-goals basis; not every situation suits for every licence and vice versa. Therefore it's absurd to say something general like "open source developers need to stop using free software licence".

Hrm, I guess what my main point from that article is, is that open source developers can have 'open source' without all the political/social overtones that come with the GPL and the rather insane 'derivative works' clause. Most open source projects would, in my opinion be better served by a license like the Mozilla Public License or one of the CC licenses. I'm aware the MPL is also a free software license but it doesn't have the ridiculous viral nature of the GPL while still providing the vast majority of protections that we need.

So I don't really consider it absurd, if your basis for the project is that it is going to be 'open source' and you don't want all the extra bells and whistles of the GPL then there is no need to use it and doing so, in my opinion, is as much a hindrance to other people that might want to learn from/use your code, as it is a help.

You could just see the GPL as an over-reaction to closed source.
To make sure that your work doesn't become abused in a similar
way as proprietary source gets used (who ever really knows how
much of it was snaffled from others?) it seems like a viable
solution. I have no problem with it, and can very well see
where they're coming from. Something that was free should not
become closed in the process of being re-used.

On the other hand I can see how the BSD license makes sense, too ;}


Cheers,
Tink

I agree entirely but I think it is too far a jump to then expect the developer to also make everything they create open as well, because they have an API call to some useful module you have created. Ideally, in my opinion, the developer should have to open source any updates or improvements to your code so that the open source community is benefiting but I'm all for letting them keep their code private if that is what they want.

Very nice attempt at a advertisement. Since Im to lazy to click your link, I shall just base my opinions from what you have posted:

Your either trolling, or have no idea what your talking about. Of course the GPL and the FSF do not serve 'the' (as in: one) programmer. If they did, they would tell you to sell your work, not give it away, and to never release your source code. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure that people who like to tinker around with code as a hobby can do so freely, and in safe knowledge that their work wont get locked up if they release it so others can use the software. You also seem to think the 'viral' nature of the GPL is bad, but in reality has no effect on any project. Don't like the GPL? Don't use GPL'd code, simple as that.

If you think your project is better served from a diffrent license, then stop complaining about the GPL, is does not, has not, and could never stop you from using another license.

Sorry, but I agree fully with the GPL's terms as they stand in the GPLv2, from a moral, commercial and legal perspective. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with proprietary software, so I'm probably at odds with the ideals of the FSF.

2 issues with this:
1) If the software is never distributed outside of the (legal) organisation, the GPL doesn't kick in, so you /can/ use the GPLed library.
2) The tone of this seems to imply that there is some kind of God given right to use the GPLed library just because it's available.

If a library is simple enough to be a trivial part of a program, then it should be trivial enough to implement yourself. If a library is an important part of the program, then complying with the GPL should be a small price to pay for having so much work done for you already.

There's a reason that Linux has become so popular when there already existed Free Unix implementations. That reason _is_ the GPL.

Dave

A few comments, first off let me say i'm not a big fan of the GPL for my own use; that is, software I write. That said, if you don't like the terms of the GPL, you are free to use a different library, piece of code, etc.

Second, using a gpl library does not force you to make your contributions gpl, it only forces the combined work to be distributed under the terms of the gpl. This is a subtle, but rather important point.

As for your example of software controlling the launch sequence of a shuttle: it's unlikely this code would be distributed, so the gpl does not really apply.

All comments based on gpl2, I'm unsure of the nuances of the gpl3, but the basic principles hold for that license as well. If the gpl is unacceptable, implement the functionality you need from scratch.

The LGPL license is less restrictive in that sense. You would only be required to re-release the library source that you modify but not the program that links against it. It you were to link against a propriety library, you would have to comply with its license as well which could entail a fee.

I agree. This post can be considered flamebait, I mean you can tell it just from the title 'Why open source developers need to stop using a free software license' (NOW !!!!!!!!!!!). And I can be considered as adding to the flames to make nice big bonfire to come, but I shall only add a twig, hopefully.

There's no point in flaming/arguing about this topic, especially when presented in such a manner. A calmer, nicer, saner thread topic might have been: 'Should I use an open-source or proprietary license for my next project ?' then ask for pros and cons, not say 'STOP USING OPEN SOURCE LICENSES NOW !!!' like the current title reads to me, and the links you've posted have a strong stench of this too. Don't do this, it's trolling.

Everyone has the right to use whatever license they see fit, and there is no way this thread will ever turn out well with that as the thread start.

I vote for close.

Ideally, the developer of the library can license it in a way that best serves their needs. The GPL is a pretty fair deal, but one should not confuse free software with public domain. Some people want the freedom guarantee the gpl offers users, others want a more permissive license. Neither one is right, all licenses involve tradeoffs.

Erm, which reality would this be? Because in the one I happen to frequent, any licensed code that has the potential to force the same license onto anything it is used with would definitely fall under the heading of an 'effect'.

As for the advertisement comment, just shush. My site was the handiest place to upload it to so I don't see why I'd bother putting it someplace else. I could have copy/pasted the entire text in here but why the hell would I when it is already some place else?

*sigh*. Its called a polemic. It's meant to incite debate and last time I checked it was a perfectly valid way to start one.

The reason I used such language is I wanted people to see the topic and come in and set me straight/argue their point. Why would I use nice, touchy-feely language if what I want is a lively debate? Either argue your point and stop crying or just ignore the thread.

It *is* possible to have an argumentative debate without resorting to flaming/random abuse. If you bothered to RTFA you would see that I don't just say 'omg the GPL sux0rz fgts' but present my interpretation of it plus why I think a lot of open source projects and the community in general would be better served with a less extreme license.

Right, that is one part of it that confuses me. For example, if I have an application that I want to release, say under the MPL, and in that application I use a GPL API for some functionality. From my interpretation of the GPL there is no way to distribute my code without licensing it under the GPL. e.g Releasing my app without the required API and saying 'Download this GPL'ed code and place it in this dictionary' would be a no-no. Yes? No?

And hence the reason for the LGPL, to at least ameliorate some of the ambiguity about linking to GPL code. Of course some people would (rightly in my opinion) argue that the new application SHOULD be GPL if it relies on previously GPL'ed code, even if just by linking. That is likely one of the reasons the original authors chose the GPL for their code. Which of course leaves everyone else with two choices....

1) Use the GPL code and release the new program under the GPL
2) Don't use the GPL code


Of course then there is the third way which is probably all to common which is the use the GPL code and ignore the GPL.

From whats been posted, I can see your preaching to the choir. Of course the FSF is a fanatical organization, thats their whole purpose. They don't care about open source, they are not with the open source movement, they care only, and solely about their own goals (free software, as they defined it). The GPL is a tool they used, and they practically admit to it (or at least, its pretty much obvious if you read enough of their stuff), to spread their agenda. So this makes quite a bit of your bashing the FSF rather strange, no one really doubts what you have to say about the FSF, most people don't even listen to the FSF, but the FSF does play its role one way to another for a lot of people.

Now, the open source movement, either spawned as a result of the FSF or not, is not part of the FSF. They have goals more like your own, and much less extreme then the FSF. You seem to be confusing the two, and blaming the result on the FSF.

And as others have stated: if you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL'd code in your project. This is what I meant by "You also seem to think the 'viral' nature of the GPL is bad, but in reality has no effect on any project.". If the GPL'd code is important enough to be used, then comply by the terms, or seek a special license from the author(s). If your unwilling to comply, then don't use it. If the authors of the original code actually wanted you to use the code in the proprietary way you want, they would have used the LGPL, BSD/MIT, MPL, or whatever license. Since they did not, its safe to conclude they don't care about your needs.

Its true that the use of the GPL may also hurt projects for the reasons you describe. No one actually argues against this, except maybe the FSF (they do think a bit strangely like that), but as I said, no one really takes what the FSF says without a heavy dish of salt. Its up to the programmers to know what license to use, the GPL just happens to be used a lot because a lot of projects are hobby projects, and the GPL is (very much arguably) a very good fit for hobbyists. For projects that want to see wide spread use across the industry, they actually do use less restrictive licenses.

This is why I say the GPL's viral nature has no real effect, without the GPL'd code you are trying to use, you are back to square one: implement it yourself or find some other code to use. Its really no loss.

The GPL does not limit what license your source is licensed under, atleast not with any exclusivity. If you want to be more liberal in your licensing terms, you can. Let's take the example of you wanting to use the bsd license for your code, but linking with a gpl (not lgpl!) library, it's perfectly doable. You simple dual-license all your code as bsd and gpl. The combined work will be gpl, but people can reuse any of your source in the normal ways the bsd license permits.

This does not really help you if you want to make it proprietary but use gpl code, of course, because you still have to comply with the gpl on the work as a whole, but the viral nature is a little less onerous than you seem to think.

I agree. OP clearly wishes the GPL to be changed so he can adapt the work of others to his own needs for his own profit without complying. The GPL was clearly intended to prevent exactly that event.

This is a total non-event.

And, yes, Linux very existence is indeed a revolutionary event. It's central goal is that no one should OWN software, that it should be open to all. Not owned by a large billionaire company, and only rented by users, which is the case for proprietary.

I remember when Drudge became the most read journalist in the US. There were other journalists who were making sarcastic remarks about wanna-be journalists. This is called green-eyes, because he was more successful. To hear them, you'd swear that like doctors or attorneys only degreed people could be journalists. The same First Amendment which gives them the right to print whatever they want also gives Drudge the right to do what he does.

The proprietary software folks will try anything to stop the open source, free software. In much the same way the music industry wishes to control your access to music, for their own gain, so do proprietary software folks want to stop their competition. Ala OP.

As a proprietary software developer, I don't see any problem with the GPL. The derivative works clause isn't "insane", it's just like 99% of other copyright licenses. It only becomes counter-intuitive when a library is GPLed, and libraries are typically LGPLed instead, they're usually only licensed as GPL by companies that make money dual-licensing them. Even that's fair enough too, they have a right to make money... I'm not going to quit using KDE because TrollTech/Nokia cashes in on companies which can afford QT's commercial license.

If the creators of a piece of software don't want me to lift portions of it for my purposes, that's perfectly reasonable -- the whole point of copyright law is to allow the creators to dictate such things.

Yeah, we have big meetings where all the world's proprietary developers conspire to find ways to kill open source. And we bring our linux laptops to the meeting, which is advertised on our LAMP servers.

You know, I'd bet the majority of proprietary software developers use Firefox. Tends to be popular amongst any kind of developers.

I agree entirely but I wonder how many projects have been GPL'ed purely because the authors wanted 'open source' and the GPL people just shout the loudest. Of course, if someone wants to release something and is anti-proprietary software or just doesn't want their code used in a proprietary system then that's fine, it is their right and I wouldn't have it any other way.

No, no I don't. What I want is clearly explained. I want an open source license without all the political and social overtones that come with the GPL. I believe in open source and I truly love the entire concept. I have learned from it, used it and contributed to it. What I don't believe in is all the anti-proprietary propoganda and conspiracies spouted by the FSF or their quest to irradicate proprietary software. Open source projects will survive and flourish whether there is a proprietary market or not. That is a result of the passion and quality of open source developers not the result of a license.

Many open source projects would get by just fine under the MPL or BSD licenses. Sure some people would take parts of the code and include it in proprietary systems but will that have a detrimental effect on the original project? I fail to see how. Yes, they could pour millions into developing all sorts of new features and then charge for them but is this bad for the original project? Under the MPL you would get back any updates to the original that they have made, which to me sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

Yes and I also work for the RIAA, do contract work for the MPAA, drink mohitos with the devil and eat babies on the weekend.

Many large companies (Cisco, HP, IBM etc) back open source initiatives and licences. They also contribute to open source projects and a significant number of companies that produce proprietary software make use of open source projects. They fear of open source is long gone.

(For the record, I don't work for any company producing proprietary software or have any intentions to do so in the near future. I'm working on three projects at the moment. Two of which are GPL'ed and one that will be MPL'ed on release)

Why in the world might "proprietary folks" want to stop opensource? It is not logical. Opensource saves time and money for proprietary software makers. You know - when you need some functionality, you can take LGPL library where this functionality is already implemented, modify it a bit, and use it. Of course, you'll have to give your changes back, so other might use or further improve your works. Without opensource you'd have to buy every library you use (this will be a loss of money, and there is still that chance that you'll encounter little bug that will make YOUR work impossible, and you'll have no right to fix it, because library is proprietary), or write it from scrath (which will be a loss of time). Opensource allow you to use work of your rivals - if they are using opensource libraries or tools and changing them, they have to make changes available for everyone, including you (but, of course, only if they will release their software to public. They have right to never do this) . I belive even Microsoft use LGPL libs in D3DX part of DirectX SDK.

In my opinion, "viral nature" is a necessary evil. Without it, someone will steal work of the community, because there will be a way to do this. And (according to Murphy's law), "if anything can go wrong, it will". As I understand, the main goal of GPL is to cut off all ways to steal work from the community.

Yes. But in reality, "math library" probably will be licensed as LGPL, so you'll be able to link it dynamically. If it is not LGPL, as I understand, you might try to contact authors and try talk them into releasing their library in different license - a special edition only for you - because copyright holders can do that. (you can contact licensing@fsf.org with questions like this)
If there are too many authors - write the library yourself, from scrath. If you can't do that (everyone can write matrix multiplications and such), this means that the library is much more complicated than "just a few calls", it is a critical component, so your whole application now really IS a derivative work, because it depends on that library. And you'll have to live with that.

The quote you've provided doesn't seem to be part of some kind of legal document. In this case - does it really matter what it says? This quote isn't even in license. Looks like those words are just their own thoughts about GPL and free software, and nothing else.
No, it isn't an obligation. You do not have to share your knowledge or software, if you don't want to. Read this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....anIDemandACopy .

If you really don't like GPL, try to write better license - without those things you don't like in GPL. For example it would be nice to have something that combined power of GPL and proprietary software, for example, although I belive that it is not possible.

P.S. Why don't you just send your suggestions/thoughts to FSF? I believe they should have GPL-dedicate mailing list or something, so it will be the best place to receive counterarguments, comments and criticism.

I'd argue that the GPL does lead to an overall better quality of software than a BSD license. When people aren't required to share their changes, they usually don't bother -- not because they refuse to, but because they're lazy. BSD code will be used by someone in a little free program that's under a closed license but doesn't actually have any commercial intent. Make the code GPL and that same developer will come along wanting to use the code, and will decide to make his program GPL in order to be allowed to do so. This results in the changes/improvements being out there to be taken back and used again by the same or other open source projects.

Don't underestimate how many programmers don't really care that much whether what they write is open source, and may choose closed source just because they're too lazy to want to upload the source and deal with anyone who may ask questions about it. These people can be persuaded by the GPL to share their code. You don't have to hate proprietary software to choose the GPL over BSD/MIT, it can be a purely practical consideration. (Though personally my only open source releases have been MIT-licensed, because they've just been things I didn't care about anymore, rather than things I was trying to grow.)

As for the MPL, frankly license proliferation is just headaches for everyone. We all know what the GPL does because it's a popular standard. BSD/MIT are very simple so easy to deal with. More complex open source licenses that do essentially the same thing as the GPL, with their only advantage being that they haven't been dirtied by the touch of Stallman, just muddles things. The GPL isn't a contract to sell your soul to Stallman, it's just a copyright license.

It's not a necessary evil in general, it's a necessary evil to comply with the desires of the people who choose the gpl. Some people are happy with the original work being free, and what to focus on wide use.

Using (for example) a bsd library as the license intends is not stealing the communities work, it was licensed that way because they expected, and even desired, that sort of use.

The fact of the matter is that the gpl has the goal of ensuring freedom for both the original work and any derived works (that are distributed). The more permissive licenses do not have this as a primary goal, their primary goal is to get the work as widely used as possible, by making it possible to integrate into as many products -- commercial or free -- as possible, with as few strings attached as possible. Neither one is correct.

An interesting theory, but one that does not seem to be based on fact. In my experience with gpl software, most of the changes that are useful come from non-distributing users of the software; or to put it another way, people who are not forced to contribute changes. The changes people are forced to contribute to comply with the license i've found, in general, to not be terribly useful.

It's hard to argue that systems like FreeBSD, embedded sql systems like sqlite, web servers like apache, remote login tools like openssh, and so forth are lower quality because they don't use the gpl.

One thing to keep in mind is that people want to contribute code, if not for altruistic reasons, than simply to save money. Forking a project and keeping your private patches in sync with the changes in the source is quite an expensive and time consuming process. There has to be a very good reason to continue doing that. The other alternative is to do it once, and never get any bug fixes or new features from the upstream. Neither of those two choices are very attractive, and this can be a very strong motivation for non-distributing users of open source software.

In other words, even if you don't have to share, there is a very strong incentive to share anyways, if only out of self-interest. When it's out of self-interest, you have an incentive to make sure your changes are in a form that can easily be merged as well (since it does you no good if you contribute changes but they aren't accepted).