I've never seen a good answer to that question. I've emailed the FSF and others and they all tell me to consult a lawyer for how the license works (if they respond at all).
Using Concord on your site? Offer a link to the source. Modify it to work better with a framework? Offer that modification too. Build an entire product off of it? Well, be prepared to release the source to that product under GPL as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to start from scratch and not freeload off the original authors who were kind enough to share source with you in the first place.
I don't understand how people can pay good money for things like game engines, then turn around and think that OSS doesn't have a price too, or get upset when they are asked to pay it. You just end up paying back to the community instead of into a company's coffers.
The GPL is less suitable for this because means that all of your code for the page(s) using Concord have to be GPL-compatible. Presumably, this includes Urchin.
I also think that a license which is too complicated for anyone to actually understand is simply too flawed to serve it's purpose, which was the original point of my post. This is completely separate from people not giving back to open source.
However, if you incorporate Concord into a product you sell, then you either need to provide the source per the provisions of the GPL, or else negotiate a different license from Winer.
GPL seems like overkill given your goal. It will be limited to a niche of either fully open source public applications or completely private/internal applications.
Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules. -- Linus Torvalds
As a Linux user (and previous developer) I can only commend these positions. I don't care about hardware companies' "intellectual property", all I want is to pay for hardware and have good drivers that don't wreak havoc with my system.
The GPL sucks, full stop.
It's not practical and it's not free. That's why I'd never consider releasing software under it.
I will agree that it is complicated but that's a result of years of companies abusing loopholes and the nature of trying to cover every conceivable scenario. It's an old codebase but still the best we have.
Practicality is never the consideration of an idealist and the GPL is definitely the product of an idealist. RMS has often appeared like a crazy old man but as time passes, he seems to be proven right more often than wrong. A consequence of idealism and the march of progress, maybe.
You're of course well within your rights to choose a different way but your characterization of the GPL not being about freedom is a bit off the mark.
It's a document that gives and preserves rights of the end user, which include the right to the source code and the right to modify and distribute.
How could it possibly 'take away' rights? Any rights not in the licence didn't exist in the first place and thus can't be 'taken away'.
A licence is a set of conditions which a code author/owner sets for using his/her code, any 'rights' you have to their code is that of the conditions they set.
If a developer chooses GPL for their code then those are the rights to which you can use their code, no rights have been 'taken away from you' at all, it's not your code.
And it's certainly practical, which I'm certain is the reason that it's the most used open source licence.
One particular aspect which makes it practical from a developer standpoint is that if they release their code under GPL they have the right to source code modifications made to their code as end users of such modifications.
There is no BEST licence, the licence profileration is a direct consequence of our different needs and values.
Sure, anything can be confusing. A door nob is surely confusing to some people, especially if they never seen one before. But a door nob is not inherently confusing, and intellectually honest people would not describe it as such.
Let me ask, what is confusing about a license that say:
You can and may do anything with this code, so long you allow others to do the same,
and to any modified version you might create.
To quote the license:
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or
asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if
you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to
respect the freedom of others.