I dont know about you, but i appreciate the idea of open source, so I can see for myself whats going on, its one thing for a developer to say 'theres no spyware in my program' quite another to give you full access to the source code, so that you know for sure.
The source is open to enable people to learn from it, not jump on it, change the front screen and call it there own
Its the code thats open, not the licence. At the end of the day it should be down to the individual doing the coding. If they want to keep it closed, then thats down to them (unless the licence for what they are doing states that they must keep it open), the same goes if they want to open the source for feedback, but not redistribution, or they are fully entitled to release under the GPL if thats what they want to do.
The example i used before, hydrairc, is relevant here as well. As you said 'more a case of companies trying to get people to work for them for free'. Hydrairc is coded by an individual, and the code is avaliable, and alot of people appreciate him for that. Many users have submitted changes to the code that they thought would help, and many of these have been added to later builds. I much prefer this way of progression, where the original coder has creative authority over his own work.
