[lelanthran]

> Please read what I wrote more carefully.

I read what you wrote and I came to the same conclusion as GP. What's wrong with simply saying "BSD/MIT has a different ideology to the GPL"?

Is that what you mean to say? If it is, why say this (which means something else):

> BSD/MIT is essentially reverting to the natural conditions that would obtain without statutory copyright. GPL on the other hand is actively attempting to motivate sharing and respect for user freedom in a way that is far beyond the natural state of affairs. Thus it's fairly described as ideological in a way that the former licenses are not.

I think you're still trying to portray one more positively than the other; you're writing a lot of words to claim "I'm not really saying that" while actually saying that.