>> If you craft your words enough, and trick people enough, then they >> will believe it is free, while being coerced into helping the 'greater >> good' > > The 'greater good' isn't a good but a bad thing in your opinion?
It's a great thing in my opinion, but coercion isn't really a good way to achieve those ends. Voluntaryism is much more powerful than the use of force >> Free should mean anyone can take my code and do what they please with >> it. > > Again that's your very personal opinion. Please don't try do define what > 'free' should mean for other people. "Free - not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes." There is nothing free about the GPL codebase. It's a vendor lock in just as is Mac or Windows. you build your platform on it, and eventually you'll need to make some code changes, and there you are forced to stick with linux and contribute back. >> Somewhat free is usually like, they can do whatever they want, but >> leave my name on it. > > That's not the definition of 'free', but of the BSD software license. I said somewhat free, and yes i was referring mostly too bsd here, they also have several other clauses as well though >> GNU Free is, sure you can use it, but you need to contribute back any >> changes you make or else. > > Obviously you don't like that thought very much. > I'd like to state that nobody is forced or coerced into using or further > developing GPL licensed software. the codebase isn't free, it comes with a lot of baggage, like you just said This really in my mind relates to how modern day socialists compare to libertarians. Positive vs Negative rights. You say everyone is 'free' but really it's only if they agree to the very specific conditions which you setup in the license. In the same way providing positive rights to people, like the right to housing or healthcare is conditional on their agreement to the conditions of the society that they were forced into. Calvin
