What is that supposed to mean? Software is software, and a great deal of GPL software is currently in the hands of consumers.
A great deal of (good!) proprietary software is currently in the hands of consumers too. So?
What is that supposed to mean? Software is software
Different classes of software exist with different licensing concerns.
Let's take a step back:
>>> For (B), that's a good thing. Nowadays, the GPL merely prevents software from having widespread use.
>> Bizarre claim. Doesn't seem to have affected Linux/Android or git itself from achieving widespread use. reply
> Platforms versus modules.
I don't understand what the last line means. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, because I don't know what it means in the first place.
Rebuttal: Didn't impact Android, Linux, or Git.
Operating systems and developer-only tools are special cases and are not relevant to the general claim of "GPL preventing widespread use".
You seem to be distinguishing between two things, but I cannot see what they are.
Three orders of magnitude of what? What is being measured? Do you mean that platforms are bigger than modules?
What I meant is that the software is used differently, and it is developed differently. It seems obvious to me that the ideal licensing for software that is vastly different from these examples of gargantuan/universal FOSS might not be GPL.