The FSF licenses cause more proprietary code to come into existence (duplication at a great cost to society) when companies cannot integrate GPL products with their proprietary licensed software. So companies write their proprietary version of the component and no one can see the source, or the source of their subcomponents.

The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not.

I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of it as MIT and BSD giving a certain user more freedom, and FSF protecting all user's freedom better.

At best the FSF license can be seen as an understandable restriction on freedom to preserve open source software by requiring reciprocation. To me there is no question that MIT and BSD licenses are more free. FSF style licenses made more sense when open source seemed like it might be a delicate beast at the mercy of proprietary forces, I think its clear now just how robust open source software is.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Imagine an open source system that's fairly popular, but with just a few developers. ProprietaryCo hires them all up, and users realize that if they want improved versions of said project, they're going to have to pay, or find some new developers. Far fetched? Not really, it's pretty similar to what Sun Microsystems did.

So, there is some risk to the community. What 'protects' BSD licensed projects best is to have a strong, and diverse development community, which is one of the things that the Apache Software Foundation tries to encourage.

As to how often that kind of thing happens, it's hard to say. BSD/Sun is a big, obvious case. It would be interesting to get statistics on others.

My general strategy is to use BSD style licensing when my code might be included in someone else's project (Hecl), and GPL if it's a "finished product" kind of thing.

From Stallamn's view, I'm pretty sure you're not taking anything away by restricting the creation of more proprietary software. Proprietary software pretty much doesn't exist for him.

To understand his point, you really have to apply all of the moral frames relating to 'freedom' to software licensing. In that view, to license software without distributing source is akin to licensing software with a clause to give up your first born.

This sort of doctrinaire newspeak is what gives GPL advocates the appearance of a cult. Developers who incorporate some open source code in their app and don't release it aren't taking away anyone's freedoms.

The upside to GPL is that any link N has the same rights to use and modify N-1 as 2 had on 1, with the downside being that N has limited rights on itself. BSD grants maximum control to each link, with the downside being that any given link may choose not to allow any links to be added below it.

Let's not throw around names... it's not out of comprehension to think of knowing what your computer is running as a fundamental right.

Developers who incorporate some open source code in their app and don't release it aren't taking away anyone's freedoms.

That's precisely it. I'm not asking you to agree with the FSF view, but to understand it. In the view of the GPL, distributing proprietary software is absolutely taking away people's rights of knowing what's running on their machine, modifying what they're running, etc.

Fundamental rights aren't always obvious, and whether or not this view will catch on is not something I pretend to know. I think this will be an open question for dozens, if not hundreds of years to come.

I agree about the different purposes, but I'd also point out that usually the more "terms and conditions" the less likely what you're getting is really free. To remove vagueness regarding freedom, Webster's definition:

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care> d: ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom> e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom> f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use

I believe FSF code, as in GPL is free. There are four freedoms that come with it. The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. You're also free not to use it.

I find it interesting that so many criticize RMS for his character and style. I find myself very tolerant of people who are very talented programmers. I think RMS is a pretty decent programmer. Emacs, GCC, ... have added a lot of value over the years.

Ah, good. Progress. We agree that what FSF calls "free", and what RMS so piously lectures us all about, has at least one substantive restriction. My definition of "free" (as in speech, as the Righteous and Holy FSF puts it) includes no substantive restrictions.

I think the Stallman's definition of "free" basically amounts to extortion on some level. I also refer back to my point about puerile bitterness.

As a side note, when you feel the need to enumerate the freedoms, then the implication is that there are lots of non-freedoms.

Programs are a form of mathematics. Freely (as in freedom) disseminating them is a good thing, it fosters creativity and synergy.

Enumerations are also a good thing, they help us remember and clarify contracts. The bill of rights is a good example. You have freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, to be secure in your letters, etc.. Notice that implicit in some of these is that you cannot deny others these rights.

I've noticed many are content to dismiss RMS because of his character. I've felt that way some in the past also but I would urge you to read some of his essays and even more so the works of Lessig, Moglen, and others in this area.

Finally a voice of reason.

The GPL is more restrictive than that. If one puts code online and says "do whatever you want with it," everyone has the same freedom to use it. No one can deny anyone else the freedom to use it, short of blocking access to the server.

I like to think that what folks refer to as its' "viral" nature is really the preservation of freedom. It strikes me that this license more than any other protects the rights of programmers and enables them to earn a living. This might seem counterintuitive, and it certainly is counter to the propaganda that often spread about communism and programmers earning a living, but much of that stems from the way corporations are structured as legal entities.

To put it another way, the GPL is definitively the license that will apply to AI entities in the future, who, I suspect, will be their own copyright owners. ;)

Sounds like the plot from http://www.accelerando.org/_static/accelerando.html

The FSF licenses aren't about giving individuals more freedom, but about ensuring more freedom for everyone. Think of each time someone accepts a license as an edge in a graph - with his licenses, Stallman doesn't want to just add more edges to the graph, he wants to change the shape of the graph all together.