-----Original Message----- From: tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org [mailto:tclug-list-bounces at mn-linux.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Atilano Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:08 PM To: Dan Armbrust Cc: p.daniels; tclug-list at mn-linux.org Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Richard Stallman Talking on UofM Campus 21 October > There is nothing restrictive about GPL. Restriction implies that you're > being denied the exercise of an action. GPL doesn't deny you anything. > It imposes obligation. There's a difference between the two. > As for why one would subject themselves to these obligations, there are > many reasons developers do this. Many do it because they feel that the > only way to ensure computing freedom is for certain obligations to be > imposed on developers. In an ideal world, one would not have to impose > these obligations but we live in a world where proprietary software > marginalizes computing freedom and it is felt that the best way to > spread computing freedom is to have those who benefit from that freedom, > to have them also grant that freedom to others. The addage "freedom is > not free" applies. The "GPL is not restrictive" debate is a common one. I don't disagree the GPL has good value and intentions; I just don't think it is as free of restrictions as some claim. IMO this is a pretty objective comparison of many common licenses and also how they apply to OpenBSD specifically. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html They both (GPL and BSD licenses) have their place and they are useful in their own way. I think they both represent a form of free software but I think the GPL is more forceful due to the restriction placed on one making changes. It almost is like a paradox, GPL asserts more freedom overall by sacrificing some of your individual freedom as you have to release your changes. That is how I see it anyways though I have not pondered the subject as much in recent years.