[random778]

It seems you want open source software and the positive things that that entails. The GPL does not want that, it wants free-as-in-freedom-as-defined-by-RMS. There are naturally pros and cons to each. People seem to forget the cons of a non-free(libre) license coupled with open source. Especially the long-term effects.

For the uninitiated/"unbrainwashed", the difference between open source software and free-as-in-freedom software:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

[belorn]

If you want a good definition of free, just pick up any philosophy book on liberty.

I use the free-as-in-freedom-as-defined-by by John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Isaiah Berlin and so many others. Free, that is freedom, that is liberty, is not the same thing anarchy and the complete lack of restrictions. freedom is not, "A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws". It is to be "under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone". Share and share alike would be one such model, as is the freedom from interference by other people, and DRM and proprietary licenses is the model for restrictions.

To quote philosopher Isaiah Berlin: "'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others."

[paulddraper]

"Free software" is not defined merely by dictionary definitions of "free" or "liberty".

For example, people are not free to create derivative works and not share them.

I'm not saying "free software" is an improper phrase, just there is more nuance than you imply.

[belorn]

Both the free software and open source definition require that you can create derivative work and share them. That freedom depends on the restraint of the author to use copyright law to persecute them under copyright law, or digital restrictions through DRM.