kawaii_rms.png
GPL is a weapon of war against software copyright. CDDL seems closer to LGPL which is just a strategic retreat. Perpetual retreat, no matter how strategic, will never win. The only thing annoying about it is people who completely miss the point and think that is an equivalent, and that the viral nature of GPL is some sort of an accidental/pointless oversight.
It's like choosing a nerf gun over a real one, cause it's much safer, lighter and more ergonomic. Makes sense in certain contexts, but doesn't mean they are equivalent, or even "same but different".
I see what you mean now. It is hostile towards your sense of ownership of the project, not your freedom, or the freedom of the users.
I guess It's a choice you have to make regarding what is more important, your personal gain(control over the project in the long term), or freedom of the community en large. I would say that the former is a (perhaps subconscious) step towards copyright and away from copyleft, if taken in isolation and not in the "strategic retreat" kind of context. Next logical step in same direction would be to go proprietary.
A license that just guarantees(as you say) the freedoms is not enough. This was understood by people who wrote even GPL 1, but not by anyone ever since apparently. It's not about living in piece with other more permissive licenses or proprietary software, it's about eradicating proprietary software. If your free software project stands in the way, then it needs to move. Why do you think apple and nvidia have proprietary toolchains now, on par with gcc? Cause llvm. Totally free software, totally cool by itself, but also totally enabling proprietary software. That is not ok for free software movement. GPL is not the a bible to live by, it's a very specific tool designed to fight proprietary software, and as such it will not be stopped by one simple level of indirection. If there is need, it will be used against other free software licenses. If it were up to people who wrote GPL software copyright and licenses, free software or not, wouldn't exist at all.
Look at the hellscape that is software industry today, look at hardware and other industries following suit, and tell me some rando's personal sense of ownership of their project (free software or not) is more important than software freedom.
There can be many specific examples where blindly applying/enforcing GPL might not a very good idea, but that doesn't mean that CDDL or MPL, or dual licensing is better in general (or even in particular, copared to LGPL).
