So I posted this on the "Which ship will you jump to thread" and then wmarone replied with this.

I was in the middle of typing a response when I realized responding would just hijack that thread and turn it into an argument about open source vs not open source.

Gerbick responded later with this excellent quote:
Anyway, I think its pointless to argue why open source hasn't produced a compelling (read: successful) product to compete with proprietary products, whether they be Windows or OSX or iOS. Android is supposedly "open" but I've seen many complaints about its particular brand of open.

What I want to argue is that open source isn't all its cracked up to be, and that as a consumer, there's nothing inherently wrong or stupid (as wmarone seems to believe) with buying the superior product.

The definition of superior is obviously arbitrary, and in my case, I just want something that will interface my music, gaming, social, and web experiences very well.

The definition of superior for wmarone (sorry to keep calling you out) seems to begin with "open source" and not give a hoot what else is present.

Anyway, my thesis and argument is this: The state of Open Source would be much further advanced by getting rid of the GPL in all its current states, getting rid of the half-step that is the LGPL, and introduce a license that ALLOWS companies to use open code in a proprietary product. Give them a grace period (say 4 years) where they can get a competitive advantage out of that code before they have to release their source code.

A simple "source code must be available by the end of 4 years from the first distribution" would do wonders for open source.

Companies who aren't keen to open source in its current state can take code, make compelling products out of it, reap all the advantages they are owed as a result of their labors, then 4 years later their code is free for everyone to read and build on as well.

EDIT:

Feel free to take this thread in totally different directions.