> But GPL itself should not be considered open-source
The term "open source" has a clear, accepted, and well-understood definition -- http://opensource.org/docs/osd -- and the GPL clearly meets this definition. If you don't like the GPL, fine. But don't say that it isn't open source, because that's just not true.
If you choose to give your own private meanings to words, you risk being misunderstood. You also risk being seen as dishonest.
I know the term has rules for being used, but those rules are too permissive if GPL is accepted (not to mention GPL 3 which now includes hardware restrictions).
If I want to run away with a library and do my own thing, I don't see a problem with that if I'm giving back the changes to the library itself. Otherwise it cannot be viewed as a public good, as some might suggest. You can't compare a public good, such as a road to GPL software, because you aren't required to transport your merchandise for free on that road ... I know, stupid analogy, but you get my point.
Proprietary software shouldn't be considered a virus that we should get rid of, that's not an open mindset in my book.
The term "open source" has a clear, accepted, and well-understood definition -- http://opensource.org/docs/osd -- and the GPL clearly meets this definition. If you don't like the GPL, fine. But don't say that it isn't open source, because that's just not true.
If you choose to give your own private meanings to words, you risk being misunderstood. You also risk being seen as dishonest.