Perhaps the enduringly persuasive argument for developing
under the GPL is NOT in the array of robust, low-cost
tools available to the developer, but in the way he can 
use those tools to both make a profit on his own development
AND easily give it away for free to those people who are 
unable to afford the package.

Thus charity becomes a factor built in to the structure
of the license, instead of as an exception to the
license.

Granted, this 'persuasive argument' is persuasive
only to people who agree that charity is a self-evident 
justification for some actions.

The way Microsoft is designed, a person DE JURE
becomes a criminal if he runs their software in a 
manner which is common, yet unlicensed. This means 
Microsoft resorts IN FIRST APPEAL to force and
intimidation, the basest purpose of law, to enforce 
their license. This means they must specifically make an 
exception for every single charitable cause they 'give' 
software to.

You see, law is intended to help people improve their
current lot; not simply to prohibit people from deproving.

The GPL is designed under the much kinder purpose
of law, which is more trust-based, yet certainly worth
the extra effort. Notice that still, a GPL developer can 
rely IN SECOND APPEAL on the force-based legal 
system in the rare case of a competitor actually using his 
own code to compete with his own market.

As long as the GPL goes substantially unchallenged in
court, which is where I believe we are still today
more than a decade after it was first drafted, this
continues to be the case; the longer this happens,
the more depth there will be to the court case which
finally does test the trust-based nature of the GPL,
because a precedent of trust is being built by time.

One noticeable side effect of this setting is that a GPL 
developer can more easily rely on word-of-mouth 
advertising than a Microsoft-oriented developer. Given
a single articulate web site on the Internet, as long as 
his code is robust and accomplishes the task elegantly,
the program will be specifically sought after by customers,
since there will always be customers who "do research"
(ie search Google, Freshmeat, etc) before purchasing.

On the other hand, Microsoft is targeting different
customers; the most docile, of users, and is compelled 
by the nature of their license to fund a large marketing 
campaign in order to attract new users. This is in part 
because they are specifically targeting people who are
agreeing to "go to jail" for license infractions; I say to
Microsoft if that's the kind of customers you want, you
can have them, as for me, I prefer to trust my customers
more. Thus Microsoft's great vestment in the BSA, which 
recently fined a company in Lenexa several hundred
thousand dollars for having unlicensed copies of
ordinary software packages, something which exists 
in as much as 50 percent of all American businesses.

In short, appealing to the common parable "You can
give a man a fish, or teach a man to fish," I would say
that Microsoft gives a man a fish, and GPL teaches
a man to fish. Some people, who simply want a fish,
head for the Microsoft package. If this is your intended
audience, then perhaps Microsoft tools are better
for your needs after all.

When it's all said and done, you'll have a pile of money,
and more disgruntled customers than you can count.

As for me and my code, I'd rather see how it can
stand on its own, against the wind of customers who
demand more of me, yet receive with sincerer gratitude.

Ain't got no problem charging a fair price for this.
Even Jesus paid taxes.

-Jared