> Google won't touch or integrate anything that is GPL licensed into their own products
ffmpeg is GPL, and it is being used in youtube. Isn't that the story here?
> Using copyright law to force corporations and developers to become contributors and active participants in your software project is, to me, a ridiculous notion.
So the fact that so many companies contribute to the Linux kernel has nothing to do with its GPL license?
Without the GPL there would be a "tragedy of the commons" situation: it would be best for the common good to share and avoid duplicated efforts, but it would be advantageous for individual companies to use the code but not share their improvements. The GPL fixes that by enforcing cooperation.
FFmpeg can also be compiled with an LGPL license so it can be linked in commercial products.
Also executing an external GPL library/binary from a commercial product (no direct linking) is not in direct contradiction with GPL terms (although it's a gray area where most companies would probably not want to go).
The last paragraph describe the gray area; i.e. if a proprietary program depends on- and combine a GPL program to perform its functionality it can be argued that the two parts are a combined work and hence the whole work must be licensed under the GPL.
ffmpeg is GPL, and it is being used in youtube. Isn't that the story here?
> Using copyright law to force corporations and developers to become contributors and active participants in your software project is, to me, a ridiculous notion.
So the fact that so many companies contribute to the Linux kernel has nothing to do with its GPL license?
Without the GPL there would be a "tragedy of the commons" situation: it would be best for the common good to share and avoid duplicated efforts, but it would be advantageous for individual companies to use the code but not share their improvements. The GPL fixes that by enforcing cooperation.