>> Here we go again. First it's "we're just not recommending $x - nobody's > >> stopping you". Now it's time to get the big hammer out and *restrict* > >> people's freedom of choice. > >> > >> It's simple. You can not get more freedom by restricting access or > >> choice. You just can't. Freedom means being free to make a choice that > >> others consider wrong, dangerous, or foolish. > >> > >> Perhaps there would be less objection to the FSF and associated antics > >> if it were called the "GNU software foundation". It's certainly not > >> about freedom. > >> > >> drue > > No one's restricting you from doing anything. No one's restricting your > access or your choices. No one's stopping you from using it, or sharing it, > or checking out the code and doing whatever you want with it, making it run > wherever you want, giving it to whoever you want, for whatever reason. > Yesterday, today, tomorrow, forever. Guaranteed. > > It's free as in "free speech," not "free ride." > Hmm, maybe you should check out the text of that GPL license again, if you don't think it is restricting you. There is a reason corporate America won't touch GPL when it comes to writing other software. Heck, even other major opensource organizations like Apache and Eclipse won't touch GPL. The Apache license gives you (the user) much more freedom than anything GPL related, end of story. The tradeoff, of course, is less control over the software by the developer. But hey, its the developers choice. I just hope that at some point, his views will restrict him into obscurity, and more developers will switch to a license that does provide more freedom to the users. One really could make the argument that his views are very similar to DRM, which I imagine most of us agree are bad. You can use these 1's and 0's, but only if you do so in exactly the way that I tell you you can....