Hello, I like (and use) your configobj. It's impressive. But I think you are wrong with your comments about the GNU and the GPL.
1. GNU makes propaganda about Software libre, not open source, but there are others interested in make people forget about the origins of the open source in the free software and his ethics. But that's another subject.
2. Can you please explain what are those ambiguities?. The GPL is so strong an clear that even in the court you can win a case against people or companies that are violating the GPL license (see http://gpl-violations.org/)
3. you said GPL "harms Python. We want to see high quality libraries and frameworks that encourage the use of Python in commercial environments.". That's totally false, you can build your high quailty libraries an release it under the LGPL and nobody will have problems linking against it.
A clear example: glibc. every body links against it and there is no problem, no harm.
4. "If you are working on a commercial project...". If you are working on a commercial project you can dual-license your code, like trolltech do with QT.
5. you said "...I personally think this is wrong-headed. I like free software, but I appreciate that it can take an enormous amount of effort to create and maintain complicated applications..."
yeah, complicated applications like the Linux kernel, KDE, and Gnome (all are GPL) and what's the problem? the community have manage to bring high quality products and be profitable even for companies.
One major problem with what you wrote, you said their are other 'Open Source' licences available. This is true. Your mistake is that the GPL isn't an open source licence (although it is OS certified) it's a 'Free Software' licence and is all about Freedom not Openness.
I have no problem with you releasing code under a BSD licence because it gives me permission to relicence your code as GPL :-P
"If you release code that uses any GPL licensed code (or even just optionally links to any GPL code, even if it's not included in your distribution), then you are obliged to license your code with the GPL"
Bzzzt. Wrong.
If you use GNU GPL'ed code, then the license of your software must be compatible with the GNU GPL itself: because the final product (YourSoft+GPLSoft) must have non-contraddictory licensing terms.
For example, you can create a program with BSD licensed source code, reusing GNU GPL'ed code snippets from other people. The distribution of BSDCode+GPLSnippets must satisfy the terms of both licenses (and the GNU GPL is the one with more requirements). But other people will be free to remove the GPL'ed snippets and reuse your code with its BSD license.
Please read the GNU GPL more carefully.
Oh, by the way: you're making some confusion between GNU (an operating system) and the FSF (the Free Software Foundation).
Well, there are lots of issues around this, but my opinion is (regarding commercial use of _source_ code):
My non-GPLed work would bring money for people that'd otherwise have to pay me for it. But those nice people are still able to pay me for my code under a different license if I do use the GNU GPL 
Oh, what if I don't want their code back, and don't want their money? Easy, BSD (modified) the code _for them_. I bet they will choose not to publish it 
From the FAQ:
"The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL."
I'd rather keep the right to 'free' my work from GPL restrictions (and let other people do the same) than to grant the right to anyone restrain my work as she sees fit. The viral thing is pretty much this, in a larger scale (you could get ANY GPLed source with a different license IF all the copyright owners agree AFAICT).
This post is in a similar vein to one that I wrote a couple weeks ago:
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/200.../03/over-gpled/
The interesting bit is that I've found that many library authors (in fact, every one that I've asked) have been willing to relicense under a more liberal license.
It seems that what you have in mind is mostly library code. The problem is different for application code, because then the GPL doesn't prevent others from using your code, just from forking it.
With all this coming from someone who sells shareware versions of Python, you don't exactly advertise the fact in "The Alternatives": something which would put your comments into perspective.
Since others have already pointed out various factual errors in your analysis, I'll refrain from further comment on your interpretation of the GPL. However, you do write this: "We want to see high quality libraries and frameworks that encourage the use of Python in commercial environments."
This is more or less the Miguel d'Icaza argument for permissive licensing, but given complaints about how companies don't seem to be that interested in participating in Python community processes (compared to GPL'd projects like Linux), I think the Python community should spend less time pandering to companies, rather making it easy for indiscriminate freeloading.
And yes, the FSF has plenty to say on this subject, but at least they make their reasoning and motivations transparent, as opposed to labelling other people's views as "propaganda" whilst conveniently concealing one's own agenda.
I don't like not being unable to use code licensed under the GNU GPL License. If I don't license my code compatibly with the GPL, I may not release code that uses any GPL licensed code (or even just optionally links to any GPL code, even if it's not included in my distribution).
While this is logically equivalent as the contrapositive of what you state, it sure feels more like the causality flow that an author needs to pay attention to. It's not "if some accessory code is GPL my code must be," it's "if my code isn't GPL I may not use some accessory code that is."
It's squarely each author's choice whether to offer GPL licensing terms on their work. The consequences of doing so or not doing so flow from that decision.
Commenting by HaloScan
