[belorn]

If you want to define free as "do what you want" then feel free to do so but don't expect everyone to agree with it. I for example live in a free country but I am far from free to do what ever I want. The word "free" has in that single sentence two different definitions, which is why the word liberty is better.

But to address one aspect, I do agree that I really don't understand the sentiment to dictate what other people can or can't do with their own software. Suing people for sharing software is wrong, and having EULA's that prevent people from understanding how their software operates is also wrong. The argument that you have to add proprietary licenses in order to earn a living is illogical and only create a world where people don't trust each other.

[jheriko]

i think you have conflated some political rhetoric with reality there.

free means free. its an abstract ideal...

you do not live in a country where people are free, 'free country' and 'liberty' are politically charged terms which evoke particular ideals, which don't directly map to the meaning of the word 'freedom'.

a big part of society is that we willingly give up certain freedoms for the greater good - this is what law is all about.

in this particular case i think its clear cut. the GPL stops software from being free compared to an MIT or BSD style license...

[belorn]

GPL only prevent people from adding restrictions which would stop the software from being free. If everyone agreed to only use MIT/BSD licenses, we would not need GPL.

It is a clear cut that many who argue MIT/BSD over GPL do so with the intention to add proprietary restrictions, while being dishonest in never talking about that aspect. Adding proprietary restrictions does not make something more free, and it attempts to frame the discussion to be about the word "free" rather than what licenses should be about: The intention of the author. If an author want to allow or not allow people to add proprietary restrictions, they are free to make that decision.